HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A.NO. 2379 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 4.03.2005 passed by the I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda (for short ‘the Court below’) in OP No. 1363 of 2001 filed by the claimant claiming compensation of Rs. 3,50,000/- for the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 21.10.2001 at about 8.30 PM when the claimant was talking with one Chilkam Jangaiah by the side of the road near water tank of Thangadpally Village, a lorry bearing No. AP 28T 5598 coming from Choutuppal in a rash and negligent manner dashed the petitioner and as a result of which, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over his body. The first respondent owner of the lorry bearing No. AP 29T 5598 remained ex-parte and the second respondent insurer of the lorry field its counter denying the averments made in the petition. 2. The Court below held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing registration No. AP 28T 5598 by its driver belonging to the first respondent, insured with the second respondent and both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The Court below also taking into consideration the evidence available on record, granted total compensation of Rs. 60,000/-with interest at 8% 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 Court below wrongly granted less compensation without appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record. He submits that the Court below failed to grant compensation by taking the multiplier method and it wrongly granted less compensation towards pain and suffering, towards medical expenses, towards loss of amenities, towards transportation, attendant charges and extra nourishment. 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 Court below 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 no doubt true that the accident occurred on 21.10.2001 at about 8.30 PM due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No. AP 28T 5598 by its driver and due to which, the claimant sustained grievous injuries to all over his body. PW- 2, doctor who clearly stated that he has done the operation and Errigation wound debredgement and clacanial fracture fragments reduced and fixed and at the time of his discharge from the hospital his wounds were not still healed and his foot restigial and function less and he issued Ex. A-10 certificate stating that the claimant is suffering 60% disability. But the Court below disbelieved the evidence of PW- 2. Hence, ends of justice would be met if 40% is taken as disability. The Court below held that there is no clinching proof that the claimant is earning Rs. 4,000/- per month on milk business. Therefore, ends of justice would be met if Rs. 2,500/- per month is taken as salary of the claimant and per annum it comes to Rs. 30,000/- and out of that if 40% disability is deducted the amount comes to Rs. 12,000/- (30,000x40/100= 12,000/-). The claimant is aged about 35 years and the relevant multiplier is ‘16’ as per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in SMT SARALA VERMA AND OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANTOEHR[1] and if applied the correct multiplier, the total dependency comes to Rs. 1,92,000/- (12,000 x 16 = 1,92,000). An amount of Rs. 30,000/- is granted towards medical expenses. Thus the Total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 2,22,000/- ( 1,92,000 + 30,000 = 2,22,000). 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 the facts and circumstances of the case, this appeal is allowed in part enhancing the compensation granted by the Court below from Rs. 60,000/- to Rs. 2,22,000/- and reducing the rate of interest from 8% per annum to 7% per annum on the enhanced compensation. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 17.2.2011 KA [1] 2009 (6) SCALE 129 [2] AIR 1992 SC 1261