HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.NO. 1607 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, is directed against the order dated 28.4.2004 passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Twin Cities, Circle II, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in WC No. 180 of 2003 filed by the claimant claiming compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- for the injuries-sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 26.10.2003 at about 10.30 AM, when the claimant was employed by the OPI as a driver on his vehicle bearing No. AP 13V 5814 and when he and others were proceeding in the said vehicle from Secretariat towards Khairatabad and on reaching Khairatabad Fly Over, one constable was coming in zigzag manner and to avoid accident the applicant dashed the constable on the traffic island and due to which, the applicant received fracture injuries to all over his body. First respondent admitted that the applicant-claimant was employed as a driver on a monthly salary of Rs. 4,000/- per month and Rs. 30/- batta per day on his car bearing No. AP 13V 5814 and the second respondent- insurer of the vehicle also field its counter denying the allegations made in the petition. 2. The Commissioner held that the workman/employee received injuries during the course of his employment, and the first respondent as the employer and owner of the vehicle and the insurer of the vehicle are liable to pay the compensation to the applicant. The Commissioner also taking into consideration the evidence available on record, granted total compensation of Rs. 2,25,653/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the claimant. 3. The main grievance of the learned counsel appearing for the claimant is that the court below ought to have considered the loss of earning capacity of the appellant, who is the driver of the car bearing No. AP 13 V 5814, to the extent of 100%. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that as far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the order of the Tribunal is quite reasonable and there is no need to interfere with the order 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 evident from the record that the accident occurred on 26.10.2003 at about 10.30 AM when the applicant along with others was proceeding from Secretariat towards Khairatabad one constable came in zigzag manner, and to avoid the accident the applicant took left but the constable also confused and came to left side due to which the applicant dashed the constable and received fracture injuries to all over his body. Be that as it may, the main grievance of the claimant is that the Commissioner instead of calculating 100% disability, calculated the disability and loss of earning capacity at 60%. Therefore, ends of justice would be met if disability of the applicant is taken at 75% as there was mal-union of tibia and clavicle. The age of the claimant is 33 years and he used to draw a sum of Rs. 4,000/- per month and Rs. 30/- batta per day from the first respondent. The Commissioner in the absence of salary certificate , taken the minimum wages at the relevant time as Rs. 2,370 + 724 (480- 411=69x10.50=724.5)= Rs. 3094.5 as the wage of the applicant. Out of that if deducted 75% disability, the amount comes to Rs. 2320.875 (3094.5x75/100=2320.875) and if applied the relevant factor under Workmen’s Compensation Act, the amount comes to Rs. 2,80,816/- (4,68,027.6525x60/100=2,80,816) 7. 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 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 facts and circumstances of the case, this appeal is allowed in part enhancing the compensation granted by the Tribunal from Rs. 2,25,653/- to Rs. 2,80,816/-. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 24.2.2011 KA [1] AIR 1992 SC 1261