HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No. 4636 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the order dated 30.6.2004 passed by the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad (for short ‘the Court below ’) in OP No. 96 of 2000 filed by the appellant-claimant claiming compensation of Rs. 11,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that occurred on 9.4.1996 at about 2.30 PM when he was going to attend a function at Jinnaram Village by engaging a matador van bearing No. AP 11T 336 from Kavadiguda Hyderabad and when he reached near Indira Nagar Colony the said Van dashed to one coal lorry behind it and due to which, the claimant received fractures and other multiple injuries throughout his body. First respondent being owner of the matador van bearing No. AP 11 T 336 remained ex parte and the second respondent, being insurer filed its counter denying the averments made in the petition including the accident injuries to the claimant. 2. The Court below held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the matador van bearing No. AP 11 T 336. Taking into consideration the evidence of the claimant that he sustained severe injuries and doctors conducted lot of operations and Auto Penous Pegula about Grelogy and AIPICE, was removed and thereafter Thomas Splent was applied and after that another operation was conducted for infected gap of non union as such ilizaror fixation was done and also bone trimpart was done and also the evidence of PW-2, doctor who treated the claimant assessed the permanent disability of 70%, awarded a sum of Rs. 5,98,400/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant submits that the Court below failed to award the compensation towards loss of earnings by fixing the salary at Rs. 3,000/- per month. He also submits that the Court below failed to award compensation of Rs. 25,000/- towards transportation and it also failed to award compensation of Rs. 25,000/- on the head of extra nourishment and it failed to grant Rs. 50,000/-under the head of loss of amenities. He also submitted that the court below ought to have awarded a compensation for permanent disability by considering 100% loss of earning capacity instead of 70%. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the claimant and also perused the entire material made available on record. 5. As seen from the record, it is no doubt true that due to rash and negligent driving of the Matador Van bearing No. AP 11T 336 by its driver, accident occurred and due to which, the claimant sustained serious injuries. The claimant was hale and healthy prior to the accident and he used to earn Rs. 3,000/- per month as a Casual Labourer in FCI to load and unload the lorries and Ex. A-33 is the identity card issued by the FCI showing that the claimant was working as casual labourer as on the date of the accident. It is stated that on account of the said accident the life of the claimant became miserable. Even though he took treatment for the injuries he sustained partial permanent disability and his left leg was shortened by more than six inches and he cannot fold his leg due to fractures and operations. Even after 14 operations his left leg seems to be an ornamental one and he would not be in a position to walk properly and he cannot walk even small distance without help of an attendant. PW-2 who treated the claimant issued the disability certificate assessing the disability at 70%. Hence, taking into consideration the above facts, that the injured was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month as a Casual Labourer, ends of justice would be met if Rs. 2,500/- per month taken as salary of the claimant and per annum it comes to Rs. 30,000/- and out of that if deducted 60% disability, the amount comes to Rs. 18,000/- (30,000 x 60/100 = 18,000/-). As the age of the claimant is 40 years the relevant multiplier to the age group 36 years to 40 years is ’15’ as per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in SARALA VERMA VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1], and if applied the correct multiplier, the amount comes to Rs. 2,70,000/- (18,000x15= 2,70,000). An amount of Rs. 10,000 is granted towards extra nourishment, Rs. 1,10,000/- is granted towards medical expenses and clothing, Rs. 24,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of amenities in life and Rs. 2,17,500/- towards loss of earnings (for 87 months @ 2,500 per month) and Rs. 25,000/- towards transport to hospitals. Thus the total comes to Rs. 6,81,500/- (2,70,000+10,000 + 1,10,000 + 24,000 + 25,000 + 2,17,000 + 25,000 = Rs. 6,81,500/-) 6. The Supreme Court also 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 the circumstances and also in view of the above judgment, the compensation granted by the Court below is enhanced from Rs. 5,98,400/- to 6,81,500/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant. 8. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the claimant is allowed and the rate of interest granted by the Court below is reduced from 9% per annum to 7% per annum. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date : 23.12.2010 KA [1] 2009 (6) SCALE 129 [2] AIR 1992 SC 1261