HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A.NO. 1401 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 7.3.2006 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum IV Additional District Judge, Warangal (for short ‘the Tribunal ’) in MVOP No. 597 of 2005 filed by the claimant claiming compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- for the injuries-sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 28.2.2004 when the claimant traveling in an auto rickshaw bearing No. AP 24 V 1070 from Siripuram to Jangaon and when it reached at the outskirts of Siripuram Village, an auto trolley bearing No. AP 36V 7231 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the auto rickshaw and due to which, the claimant, who was traveling in the auto fell down and received grievous injuries. Respondents 1 and 2 remained exparte and the third respondent-National Insurance Company filed 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 offending auto trolley therefore, respondents 1 to 3 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. 74,000/-with interest at 7.5% 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 Tribunal failed to appreciate that the claimant sustained fracture of femur and fractures to both bones of right leg upper 1/3 and underwent surgery by inserting steel rods and screws and suffered disability by incurring more than Rs. 20,000/- towards medical expenses. He also contended that the doctor, who examined before the court opined that the appellant sustained 50% disability in the absence of any evidence led by the respondents. He also submits that the learned Judge failed to award the amount as claimed inspite of the evidence on record and therefore, amount awarded deserves to be enhanced. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the order of the Tribunal 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. It is evident from the record that the accident occurred on 28.2.2004 when the claimant traveling in an auto rickshaw bearing No. AP 24 V 1070 from Siripuram to Jangaon and when it reached at the outskirts of Siripuram Village, an auto trolley bearing No. AP 36V 7231 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the auto rickshaw and due to which, the claimant fell down from the auto and received grievous injuries. It is on record that the Tribunal observed that PW-2, who is also competent Orthopedic Surgeon after examining the claimant in the Court opined that the claimant suffering from 30% to 40% disability and he opined that the process of union of bones is still continuing. It is stated that the claimant claimed to be an agriculturist with a monthly income of Rs. 4,000/- and Ex. A-9 is the certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Lingala Ghanpur Mandal. Hence, ends of justice would be met if Rs. 3,000/- per month is taken as the income of the claimant and per annum it comes to Rs. 36,000/- and out of that 40% disability if deducted, the net amount comes to Rs. 14400/- (36,000x40/100=14400). As the age of the claimant is 45 years as on the date of the accident, the appropriate multiplier is 14 as per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in SMT SARALA VERMA AND OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER[1] and if applied the correct multiplier, the total amount comes to Rs. 2,01,600/- (14,400 x 14 = 2,01,600). An amount of Rs. 5,000/- is granted towards medical expenses and Rs. 5,000/- is granted towards pain and suffering. Thus the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 2,11,600/- (2,01,600 + 5,000 + 5,000 = 2,11,600). 7. The Supreme Court 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 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. 74,000/- to Rs. 2,11,600/-. The rate of interest granted by the Tribunal is reduced from 7.5% per annum to 7% per annum on the enhanced compensation. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 24.2.2011 KA [1] 2009 (6) SCALE 129 [2] AIR 1992 SC 1261