HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO. 1294 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award made by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum District Judge, Cuddapah in O.P.No. 884 of 1996 dated 25.11.1998, filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/-, as against which the Tribunal awarded Rs. 75,000/- only together with 12% interest per annum. 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: The claimant is a Cleaner of the lorry bearing No. AP04 U 1275. On 10.7.1995 at abut 8.00 AM when the lorry stopped before the security room to show the records to the guards, a lorry bearing No. AP04 T 2289 belonging to the first respondent driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and without blowing horn dashed against the claimant. Due to which, the claimant fell down and right front wheel of the lorry ran over the legs of the petitioner and both bones of both thighs of the claimant were fractured. The claimant lodged a complaint before the police and he was taken to the Hospital and treated as inpatient and after that he went to Puttur Bone Settings for treatment there he was informed that he has no chance to recover. The claimant sustained permanent disability and lost his employment. The claimant was earning Rs. 1200 per month as cleaner and therefore, he laid a claim claiming compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/- 3. The first respondent-Owner of the lorry bearing No. AP04-U-1275 remained exparte. The second respondent-Insurance Company filed counter denying all the allegations stating that the claimant has to prove that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry of the first respondent and that he sustained permanent disability. It also submits that the accident vehicle has no RC permit and driving licence to the driver at the time of the accident and therefore, it is not liable to pay compensation. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial: 1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation and if so to what amount and from whom? 2. to what relief? 5. On behalf of the claimant, the claimant himself was examined as PW-1 and examined another witness as PW-2 and got marked Exs A1 to A6. On behalf of contesting respondents, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked. 6. With regard to issue No. 1, the Tribunal held that taking into consideration of Exs A1 and A3 that police have investigated into the case and filed charge sheet against the driver of the lorry, the accident was solely occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. With regard to second issue, the Tribunal taking into consideration of the facts and disability of the claimant and taking into consideration of the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant, the Tribunal granted Rs. 30,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs. 3,000/- towards incidental and medical expenses, and Rs. 42,000/- towards partial permanent disability totaling to Rs. 75,000/- inclusive of no-fault liability. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the claimant seeking more compensation. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant- claimant submits that the award of the Tribunal is very low and the same is not arrived at by considering the evidence on record. He also submits that the Tribunal failed to see that the claimant has lost both legs making him unable to work as a cleaner and consequently the appellant lost his source of income and as such, the Tribunal ought tohave granted compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/- instead of Rs. 75,000/-. 8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-claimant and perused the entire material made available on record. 9. As seen from the record, it is no doubt true that the accident occurred on 10.7.1995 due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver and the lorry ran over the legs of the appellant and both bones of both thighs of the appellant were fractured. The appellant went to Puttur Bone Setters for treatment but there he was informed that he has no chance to recover. Therefore, in my considered view the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meager. The Supreme Court i n HARDEO KAUR VS. RAJASTHAN STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1][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 emphasize 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.” 10. Following the above judgment, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs. 75,000/- to Rs. 1,25,000/-. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal at 12% is on high side and requested that the same may be reduced. 12. Taking into consideration of Supreme Court judgments and also the prevailing current rate of interest, the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal at 12% per annum is reduced to 7% per annum on the enhanced compensation amount. 13. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 24.06.2010 KA [1] AIR 2003 SC 607 [2] AIR 1992 SC 1261