THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.4602 of 2004 JUDGMENT The appellant-claimant filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) against the order, dated 24.06.2004, passed in O.P.No.1929 of 2000 by the learned II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 2. The claimant sustained injuries in a motor accident occurred on 28.07.2000 at about 4.00 PM near Maremma Temple, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of DCM van bearing No. AP 3U 313. He filed O.P.No.1929 of 2000 claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- against respondents 1 and 2 being owner and insurer, respectively, of the crime vehicle. Respondent No.2 filed counter denying the allegations made in the claim petition. By the order impugned, the Court below awarded compensation of Rs.29,100/- payable by respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the appellant-claimant filed this appeal. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent No.1. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant contended that the Court below without considering Ex.A10-medical bills, awarded only a sum of Rs.100/-. He further contended that the Court below ought to have awarded compensation towards loss of earnings. Thus, he prays to enhance the compensation. 5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1 contended that the claimant has not adduced the evidence of doctor, who treated him for the alleged injuries sustained. 6. There is no dispute with regard to rash and negligent driving of the driver of DCM van at the time of accident. The dispute is with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The material on record discloses that the claimant sustained fracture of pelvic and injury on parietal bone, left hand and head and his abdomen was cut off and an operation was conducted. Though the claimant has not adduced the evidence of Doctor, who treated him, the nature of injuries sustained by him and the operation conducted to his abdomen, have to be taken into consideration. I n HARDEO KAUR v. RAJASTHAN STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1] the Apex Court held as under: “the determination of compensation in respect of injury cases must be liberal and the amount of compensation to 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 previous 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.” Following the said judgment of the Apex Court and considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, it would be appropriate to award a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to him. Thus, the compensation is enhanced from Rs.29,100/- to Rs.50,000/-. The order of the Court below in all other aspects shall remain unaltered. The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the petition till realization. 7. With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. No costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:23.09.2010 sj [1] AIR 1992 SC 1261