HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No. 662 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the order dated 30.12.2004 passed by the II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad cum XV Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Court below’) in OP No. 709 of 2002 filed by the appellant-claimant claiming compensation of Rs. 11,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that occurred on 15.1.2002 at bout 11.00 AM when he was traveling along with others in a jeep bearing No. AP 12T 9100 from Jamaipally Village to Hyderabad, the driver of the jeep drove the jeep with high speed in rash and negligent manner and lost his control over the vehicle and thereby the jeep went aside and hit the tree and due to which, the claimant sustained fracture of left clavical, left hand and left side ribs and injuries all over the body. Respondents 1, being owner of the Jeep bearing No. AP-12T-9100 remained ex parte and the second respondent, being insurer filed its counter denying the averments made in the petition including the accident injuries to the claimant. 2. The Court below having held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Jeep bearing No. AP 12T 9100, and taking into consideration the evidence of the claimant that he sustained fracture injuries and also taking into consideration the evidence of PW 2, doctor who treated the claimant, assessed the disability at 90% with reference to his left hand and awarded a total sum of Rs. 4,08,240/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant submits that the Court below wrongly granted less compensation towards medical expenses, transportation, pain and suffering, loss of amenities and earnings during the period of treatment and it wrongly taken the multiplier on lower side. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the disability assessed at 90% is abnormal and excessive. He has drawn my attention to the Second Schedule, ‘Schedule for Compensation for Third Party Fatal Accidents/Injury Cases Claims’. The relevant portion at Serial No. 4 General Damages in case of injuries and disabilities reads as udner: “(i) Pain and sufferings (a) Grievous injuries Rs. 5,000/- (b) Non-grievous injuries Rs.1,000/- (ii). Medical expenses-actual expenses incurred supported by bills/vouchers but not exceeding as one time payment Rs. 15,000”. Therefore, the order of the Court below is quite correct and there are no grounds to interfere with the order. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the claimant and also perused the entire material made available on record. 6. As seen from the record, it is no doubt true that due to rash and negligent driving of the Jeep bearing No. AP 12T-9100 by its driver, accident occurred and due to which, the claimant fell down and sustained serious injuries. The claimant was hale and healthy prior to the accident and he used to earn Rs. 7,000/- per month by working as a Manager in Chandana Wire Products Limited, Balanagar, Hyderabad. PW-2 doctor who treated the claimant deposed that the claimant took treatment as inpatient for a period of one month i.e., from 15.1.2002 to 15.2.2002 and Ex. A4 the wound certificate issued by the medical officer reveals that the doctor found three fractures i.e., right tube and fibula, clavicle left, ribs left 3rd to 5th and one laceration and two contusions and the doctor opined that all the fractures are grievous in nature and the other injuries are simple in nature. PW-2 assessed the disability of the claimant at 90% with which he is suffering and it is a permanent disability. Hence, taking into consideration the above facts, that the injured was earning Rs. 8,350/- per month as Works Manager, and Ex. A15 is the salary certificate issued by the employer of the claimant showing the salary as Rs. 8,350/-, ends of justice would be met if Rs. 5,000/- per month is taken as salary of the claimant and per annum it comes to Rs. 60,000/- and out of that if deducted 60% disability the amount comes to Rs. 36,000/- ( 60,000 x 60/100 = 36,000/- ). As the age of the claimant is 32 years, the relevant multiplier to the age group 31 years to 35 years is ’16’ as per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in SARALA VERMA VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1], and if applied the correct multiplier, the amount comes to Rs. 5,76,000/- (36,000x16= 5,76,000). An amount of Rs. 1,75,639/- granted towards medical treatment, extra nourishment and other incidental charges by the court below shall remain as it is. An amount of Rs. 40,000/- is grated towards pain and suffering. Thus the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 7,91,639/- (5,76,000 +1,75,639/- +40,000 = 7,91,639). 7. The Supreme Court also in HARDEO KAUR VS. RAJASTHAN STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION[2] 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 the circumstances and also in view of the above judgment, an amount of Rs. 7,91,639/- (Rupees Seven Lakh Ninety One Thousand Six Hundred Thirty Nine only) is now granted to the claimant. 9. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the claimant is allowed in part and the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal is reduced from 9% per annum to 7% per annum. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 23.12.2010 KA [1] 2009 (6) SCALE 129 [2] AIR 1992 SC 1261