THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CMA No. 4157 OF 2004 Dated: 18-11-2010 Between: G. Anthony ... APPELLANT AND M/s. Shakti Road Transpot Private Limited, rep., by itsManager, having its office at Ranganathan Avenue, Sylvan Lodge Colony, Kilpauk, Chennai and another ... RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CMA No. 4157 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed against the order dated 01-09-2004 in O.P No. 921 of 2001 on the file of the V Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Ranga Reddy District. The claimant is the appellant. He filed the said O.P claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in an accident. He pleaded that he was working as an office boy in Eenadu Office earning Rs.1,500/- per month and on 04-06-2001 at about 10.15 pm he along with his friend was proceeding on a Hero Honda motor cycle bearing No. AP 10P 4082 towards Bowenpally side and when they reached Ganesh Pan Shop, Chinnathokatta, Bowenpally, a lorry bearing No. TN OIL 7413 came at a high speed driven in a rash and negligent manner without following traffic rules, dashed the motorcycle from behind due to which both of them fell down and sustained multiple injuries. It is further stated that he sustained fracture to both legs and other grievous injuries all over the body and was shifted to Gandhi Hospital where he was admitted as inpatient and thereafter he was admitted in a private hospital for treatment. The first respondent remained ex parte before the Court below. The second respondent – Insurance Company filed the counter denying all the material allegations. On the strength of the pleadings, the learned Judge framed necessary issues as to whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and whether the appellant is entitled for compensation and if so, to what relief he is entitled. On behalf of the appellant, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-8 were marked and Ex.B-1 Insurance policy was marked on behalf of the respondent – Insurance Company. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Judge answered the first and second issues in favour of the appellant and as regards the third issue, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was awarded towards compensation. Being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation granted by the learned Judge, the present appeal is filed by the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Judge has awarded only Rs.1,000/- per month as the earnings of the appellant which is on lower side and, therefore, the same needs to be enhanced. He further contended that though the doctor who was examined as PW 2 deposed that the appellant sustained 60% disability and issued Ex.A-5 certificate, the learned Judge has taken the disability as 20% only. The learned counsel for the respondent – Insurance Company contends that the compensation awarded by the learned Judge is quite reasonable and needs no interference. There is no dispute with regard to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle. Regarding the earnings of the deceased, the learned Judge has granted only Rs.1,000/- per month which in my considered view is very meagre. The Supreme Court in Hardeo Kaur vs. Rajasthan State Transport Corporation[1] 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 Learned Judges or Courts. When the compensation is awarded by the Courts and Learned Judges 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.” In view of the above, I feel that an amount of Rs.1,500/- per month towards loss of earnings as claimed by the appellant would meet the ends of justice. Insofar as disability is concerned, it is claimed by the appellant that he sustained fracture to both legs, fracture to left fibia and foot drops and also crush injuries to right leg and was shifted to Apollo Hospital and thereafter to Gandhi Hospital for treatment where he was treated as inpatient from 06-06-2001 to 14-07-2001 and an operation was conducted. He was again admitted on 25-07-2001 and treated till 01-08-2001 and skin grafting was also done on his two legs. In support of his claim he examined PW 2 who issued disability certificate Ex.A-5. The learned Judge observing that the appellant has not taken treatment under PW 2 and has went to him only for the sole purpose of obtaining Ex.A-5 disability certificate dated 12-05-2004 which is about two years nine months after the appellant was discharged disbelieved the same and has taken the disability at 20% which in my view can be taken at 30% having regard to the peculiar circumstances of the case. Thus, the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,500/- per months towards loss of earnings which comes to Rs.18,000/- per annum, out of which 30% should be taken for the purpose of determining the compensation towards disability and thereby, it comes to Rs.5,400/- per annum. Since the age of the appellant was 21 years at the time of accident, the appropriate multiplier for the said age group, as per the decision of the apex Court in Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[2] is 18. Then, the compensation towards 30% disability comes to Rs.5,400X18=Rs.97,200/-. The amount of Rs.35,000/- awarded by the learned Judge towards injuries is also maintained. In addition, a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.15,000/- towards medicines is awarded. Therefore, in all, the compensation comes to Rs.1,67,200/- which is rounded of to Rs.1,70,000/-. Thus, the compensation awarded by Learned Judge is enhanced from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.1,70,000/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. With the above modification, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. GHULAM MOHAMMED, J 18-11-2010 ks [1] AIR 1992 SC 1261 [2] 2009 (6) SCALE 129