THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.861 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity the ‘the Act’) seeking to enhance the quantum of compensation awarded in O.P.No.2641 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for brevity ‘the Tribunal) by the order, dated 04.11.2003, whereunder a sum of Rs.5,21,000/- was awarded as compensation for the death of the deceased-Dayanand in a motor vehicle accident. The brief facts of the case are that on 02.01.2001, at about 12 noon, when the deceased along with his wife was travelling in a Seven-seater auto bearing No.AP-23T-5120, the driver of the same drove it in a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and lost control, due to which, the auto turned turtle and the deceased sustained multiple injuries and succumbed to the same while undergoing treatment in CDR Hospital, Hospital. Hence, the claim petition. Heard learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and the learned Standing Counsel for the insurer-second respondent. The only point for determination in this appeal is whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. P.W-1-the wife of the deceased deposed that the deceased was a private Medical Practitioner and was getting Rs.5,000/- per month. Ex.A-12-Medical Practice Certificate and Ex.A-13-Income certificate were also filed. The Supreme Court in HARDEO KAUR VS. RAJASTHAN STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1] observed 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 a AIR 2003 SUPREME COURT 607” Following the said judgment of the Supreme Court, while calculating the compensation to be granted to the claimants, who are wholly dependent on the deceased, a liberal view has to be taken. In view of the same, the monthly income of the deceased can safely be taken at R.3,500/- per month. Claimants 1 to 4 are the dependants on the deceased i.e., claimant No.1 being the wife and claimant Nos.2 to 4 being the children of the deceased. Hence, if ¼ of the income of the deceased is deducted towards his personal expenses, his monthly contribution to the family comes to Rs.2,625/-, which works out to Rs.31,500/- per annum. Having regard to the age of the deceased at 45 years, as per Ex.A-6-post-mortem certificate, the appropriate multiplier is ‘15’ and by applying the compensation towards the loss of dependency comes to Rs.4,72,500/-. In addition to the same, the claimants are also entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.2,00,000/- towards hospital charges and incidental expenses, as was rightly awarded by the Tribunal taking into account the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part, enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.5,21,000/- to Rs.6,92,500/-. In other words, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced by Rs.1,71,500/- which shall carry interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the said O.P. till the date of realization. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ______________________________ JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED 23rd September 2010 dr [1] AIR 1992 SC 1261