HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A.NO. 934 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 27.6.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XIII Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Courts, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in OP No. 1790 of 2003 filed by the claimant claiming compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- for the injuries sustained in a motor accident that occurred on 08.02.2003 at about 1.30 A.M while he was proceeding in the lorry bearing No. AP 4.0182 as Cleaner from Vaddepally Miryalguda towards Hyderabad and reached Balijaguda Cross Roads, a lorry bearing No. APR 8571 coming in opposite direction came at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against their lorry and as a result of which, the claimant sustained head injury, fractures to his right leg and multiple injuries all over the body. The first respondent owner of the lorry bearing No. APR 8571and the second respondent insurer of the lorry field its counter denying the averments made in the petition. 2. The Tribunal held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No. APR 8571 by its driver belonging to the first respondent, insured with the second respondent and both respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal also taking into consideration the evidence available on record, granted total compensation of Rs.1,08,400/-with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the claimant. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant contended that the Court below wrongly granted less compensation without appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record. He also submits that the learned Judge ought to have considered 100% loss of earning capacity and it failed to award compensation of Rs. 20,000/- under the loss of amenities but instead it granted only Rs. 5,000/-. He further contended that the judgment of the Court below suffers from various infirmities and it has not considered the matter in proper perspective. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the order of the Court below is quite reasonable and there is no need to interfere with the order, with regard to quantum of compensation but as far as rate of interest is concerned, the same may be reduced. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the entire material made available on record. 6. As seen from the record, the accident occurred on 8.02.2003 at about 1.30 A.M while the claimant was proceeding in the lorry bearing No. A.P. 4.0182 as a cleaner from Vaddepally Miryalguda towards Hyderabad, a lorry bearing No. APR 8571 coming in an opposite direction driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against it and as a result of which, the claimant sustained head injury, fracture to his right leg, right hand and multiple injuries all over the body. PW-2, doctor deposed that the injury on his stomach is a grievous in nature, which is likely to cause hindrance in his work. Therefore, the Tribunal taking into consideration the evidence available on record awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,08,400/- as compensation. Taking into consideration the gravity of injuries and the fracture on the right leg, on the right hand and operation on the abdomen, ends of justice would be met if Rs. 45,000/- is granted towards medical expenses. Thus the total compensation comes to Rs. 1,53,000/- (1,08,400+45,000= 1,53,000). 7. The Supreme Court in HARDEO KAUR VS. RAJASTHAN STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1] held that the determination of compensation in respect of injury cases must be liberal. The relevant portion of the same reads as under: “the determination of compensation in respect of injury cases must be liberal and the amount of compensation so awarded should not be niggardly and at the same not a wind fall as a profit making venture through the Tribunals or Courts. When the compensation is awarded by the Courts and Tribunals even the tort feasor should feel that he is atoned for the sin committed by him in committing the accident robbing the precious life of a human being and injuring the innocent person for no fault of his and the guidelines from such precedents is only to emphasise that if there are two precedents dealing with the same question of assessing the compensation, the one which has adopted a liberal approach should be preferred than the one which has adopted the conservative approach.” 8. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above judgment, and also taking into consideration facts and circumstances of the case, this appeal is allowed in part enhancing the compensation granted by the Tribunal from Rs. 1,08,400/- to Rs. 1,53,400/-. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 10.2.2010 KA [1] AIR 1992 SC 1261