THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No:2327 of 2005 JUDGMENT: Questioning the quantum of compensation, the National Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Divisional Manager, preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) against the order dated 29.06.2004 passed in M.V.O.P.No.426 of 2003 by the V Additional District Judge (FTC)-cum- Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurnool. 2. The claim petitioner, namely, K. Yellaiah, minor represented by his father K. Chinna Thirupalu, filed the above O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that occurred on 11.05.2003. It was stated that on the date of incident, the claimant along with K. Somanna and K. Alla Babu went to coolie work. After completion of work they were returning to Orvakal from Somayajulapalle in a DB cart, at about 9 p.m. when they reached Guttipadu bus stage, the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP-21-T-2514 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn and hit the backside of the bullock cart, as a result, the claimant and others fell down and received multiple injuries all over the body. Immediately, they were shifted to Government Hospital, Kurnool. 3. The first respondent-owner of the lorry remained ex parte. The second respondent-Insurance Company filed counter denying the averments made in the petition regarding the occurrence of accident, involvement of the crime vehicle, and the earnings of the deceased. 4. All the three injured filed three O.Ps. The trial Court, on a memo filed by the learned counsel for the claimants in all the O.Ps., clubbed the three O.Ps., together, framed the issues and recorded evidence in O.P.No.424 of 2002. 5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial. 1. Whether he accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP-21-T-25147 ? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, and if so to what amount and from which of the respondents ? 3. To what relief ? Before the Tribunal, the claimants examined themselves as PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.6. On behalf of the second respondent, Ex.B.1-insurance policy was marked. 6. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the claimants, the Tribunal on Issue No.1 held that PWs.1 to 3, who are the injured claimants, categorically deposed in their affidavits that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle. Though they were cross- examined at length, nothing contra has been elicited to disprove their evidence. Apart from the above, the police registered a crime only against the driver of the lorry, and after investigation they filed charge sheet against him. So the entire material would go to show that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime lorry, and accordingly answered the issue in favour of the claimants. On Issue No.2 the Tribunal observed that as per Ex.A.5-wound certificate the claimant in the present O.P. sustained swelling of 3 x 3 on lateral side of left eye, and swelling and deformity to right wrist joint. As per the opinion of specialists both fracture of parietal bone and fracture of radius and ulna of right wrist, are grievous in nature. Though the head is a main part of the body and there was fracture to a parietal bone, but it has not resulted in adverse effects even as per the evidence of the claimant. Accordingly the Tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- for injury No.1, and since both the bones of right wrist were fractured, for injury No.2 also awarded Rs.20,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.485/- towards medical expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering, and Rs.5000/- towards past and future earnings. In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.55,485/- towards compensation together with interest @ 9% p.a. fastening the liability solely on the Insurance Company. Aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company filed the present appeal. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the first respondent/claimant. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that though the doctor, who treated the claimant was not examined for ascertaining the grievousness of the injuries and disability, the tribunal erred in awarding the compensation to the alleged injuries, and a lump sum amount of Rs.20,000/- for swelling. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/claimant sought to sustain the award of the Tribunal. 10. Though the doctor, who treated the claimant was not examined, as seen from Ex.A.5-wound certificate, the claimant sustained two injuries, which are grievous in nature as per the medical opinion and it is also a fact that head is a main part of the body and there was fracture to a parietal bone, but it has not resulted any adverse effects. Further the claimant was admitted in the hospital on 12.05.2003 and discharged on 7.06.2003 i.e., nearly about 25 days. So the claimant might have been suffered a lot, that too, because of the head injury. 11. It is well settled by the Supreme Court in Hardeo Kaur vs. Rajasthan State Transport Corporation[1], 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 emphasize 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” Having regard to the evidence adduced and the law laid down by the Apex Court (1) supra, in my considered opinion the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation, which does not warrant any interference in this appeal. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 12. However, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the interest awarded by the Tribunal @ 9% p.a., is on higher side. Hence I deem it appropriate to reduce the interest from 9% p.a. to 7% p.a. 13. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ (GHULAM MOHAMMED, J.) 29th July, 2010 Js. [1] 1992 SC 1261