HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.NO. 556 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the Order and Decree dated 9.10.2003 passed by the IV Additional Chief Judge cum Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Court below’) in OP No. 1450 of 2001 filed by the claimant claiming compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained in a motor accident that occurred on 14.7.2001 at about 10.00 a.m while he was going by walk on extreme left side of the road, an Auto bearing No. AP13 U 9372 came in a rash and negligent manner and gave dash to him. Due to which, he fell down and sustained fracture injuries. First respondent being owner of the auto bearing No. AP 13 U 9372 remained ex parte. Second respondent-United India Insurance Company Limited filed its counter denying all the averments made in the petition. 2. The Tribunal having held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto bearing No. AP 13 U 9372 belonging to the first respondent and taking into consideration of the evidence available on record, granted total compensation of Rs.61,600/-with interest at 9% 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 properly. He also submits that the learned Judge had failed to take into consideration the permanent disability of 90% as spoken to by PW-2, doctor, failed to grant the compensation by applying multiplier method. The Court below had wrongly taken the age and earnings of the appellant. He further contended that the judgment of the Court below suffers from various infirmities and the Court below has not considered the matter in proper perspective. 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. As seen from the record, the accident occurred on 17.4.2001 at about 10.00 a.m due to rash and negligent driving of the auto bearing No. AP 13U 9372 by its driver. Due to which the claimant sustained fracture injuries. PW-2, doctor deposed that the claimant got old grade-III compound fracture of right hand with loss of muscle and skin involving right elbow, fracture of head, damages to right eye and other multiple injuries and operation was done and steel plates were inserted in the right hand and later the steel rod was removed and now the claimant cannot use entire right upper limb following trauma and he cannot lift weights and that there is non-union of right elbow joint and loss of vision in the right eye and also hearing of right ear and got constant headache. According to doctor, the disability is around 90%. But the Tribunal disbelieved the evidence of PW-2 and granted a sum of Rs. 61,600/-. PW-2, Dr. S. Venkat Raman, Orthopaedic Surgeon examined the claimant physically and clinically. The claimant had Old Grade III Compound fracture of right hand with loss of muscle and skin involving right elbow, fracture of head, damages to right eye, fracture of right elbow and other multiple injuries. He also stated that operation was done and steel plates were inserted on the right hand and skin grafting was done to the right hand and consequently the steel rod was removed by conducting operation. Therefore, considering the nature of injuries, I take the disability of the claimant at 50%. The claimant was working as labourer before the accident, his income can be safely taken as Rs. 2,000/- per month and out of that 50% disability if deducted, the loss of earning capacity comes to Rs. 1,000/- per month and per annum it comes to Rs. 12,000/- and for the age of 52 years, the appropriate multiplier is 11 as per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in SMT SARALA VERMA AND OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANTOEHR[1], if applied the total amount comes to Rs. 1,32,000/- (12,000x11=1,32,000). An amount of Rs. 30,000/- is granted towards pain and suffering, Rs. 20,000/- is granted towards loss of amenities and Rs. 8,000/- is granted towards medical expenses totaling to Rs. 1,90,000/- (1,32,000 + 30,000+ 20,000 + 8,000 = 1,90,000/-). 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.” 7. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above judgments, and also taking into consideration of facts and circumstances of the case, the amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs. 61,600/- to Rs. 1,90,000/-. 8. The Supreme Court in NAGAPPA VS. GURUDAYAL SINGH AND OTHERS[3] held as under ; “Under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, there is no restriction that compensation could be awarded only up to the amount claimed by the claimant. In an appropriate case where from the evidence brought on record if Tribunal/Court considers that claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass such award. Only embargo is – it should be ‘just’ compensation that is to say, it should be neither arbitrary, fanciful nor unjustifiable from the evidence. This would be clear by reference to the relevant provisions of the M.V. Act. Section 166 provides that an application for compensation arising out of an accident involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both, could be made (a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or (b) by the owner of the property; or (c) where death has resulted from the accident by all or any of the legal representatives of the occasion or (d) by any agent duly authorized by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be. Under the proviso to sub section (1), all the legal representatives of the deceased who have not joined as the claimants are to be impleaded as respondents to the application for compensation. Other important part of the said section is sub section (4) which provides that ‘the Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under sub section (6) of section 158 as an application for compensation under this Act’. Hence, claims Tribunal is appropriate case can treat the report forwarded to it as an application for compensation even though no such claim is made or no specified amount is claimed.” 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the above decision, I am of the considered opinion that the claimant is entitled to the compensation of Rs. 1,90,000/- under all the heads, as stated above. 10. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part awarding the compensation of Rs. 1,90,000/-. As far as the rate of interest is concerned, the same is reduced from 9% per annum granted by the Tribunal to 7% per annum on the enhanced compensation. However, it is made clear that since the Court fee is paid only to an extent of Rs. 38,400/, the claimant is directed to pay the remaining Court fee on the enhanced compensation. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date : 17.9.2010 KA [1] 2009 (6) SCALE 129 [2] AIR 1992 SC 1261 [3] AIR 2003 SC 674