HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MA C.M.A.No. 2781 of 2005 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the order dated 18.10.2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum VI Additional District Judge, Nizamabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in OP No. 658 of 2000 filed by the appellant-claimant claiming compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in a motor accident that occurred on 11.5.2000 at about 6.30 PM when she along with others going in an auto bearing No. AP-25T-7911 from Boregaon bridge to Nizamabad and on the way to Boregaon Bridge, the driver of the auto drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and as a result of which, the auto turned turtle and the claimant sustained grievous injuries and fractures all over her body. Respondents 1 being owner of the auto and the second respondent, being insurer filed its counter denying the averments made in the petition disputing the valid driving licence, insurance policy in question. 2. The Tribunal having held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Auto, and taking into consideration the evidence of PW 2 who treated the claimant assessed the disability at 20% and issued Ex. C-1, disability certificate and also the documents marked as Exs A-1 to A-10, observed that the claimant did not sustain any injuries as mentioned in Ex. A-3-wound certificate, dismissed the claim petition without costs. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant contended that the claim cannot be rejected on technical grounds that too in the absence of contra evidence. He also submits that the Tribunal did not appreciate the fractures and other injuries and incurred huge expenses towards treatment, transport, extra nourishment. 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 Auto bearing No. AP 25T 7911 by its driver, accident occurred and due to which, the claimant fell down and sustained serious injuries. The claimant was hale and healthy prior to the accident and she used to earn Rs. 1500/- per month by doing rolling beedies and to that effect she field Ex. A-8 copy of identity card issued by Bodu Gangaram Factory. As per Ex. A4 and A5 claimant was admitted in the hospital on 13.5.2000 and discharged on 15.5.2000 and she sustained following injuries: “1. Scapula haematoma over left temporal and occipital region. 2. Tenderness over right maxillo zygomatic region. 3. Abrasion over right shoulder.” She also submitted medical bills, which are marked as Ex. A7 showing the amount of Rs. 16,713/- incurred towards medical expenses. PW-2, the doctor who treated her also issued Ex. C1 disability certificate assessing the disability at 20%. Hence, taking into consideration the above facts, that the injured was earning Rs, 1,500/- per month by doing rolling beedies, ends of justice would be met if Rs. 2,000/- per month taken as earnings of the claimant and per annum it comes to Rs. 24,000/- and out of that 15% of the amount taken towards permanent and partial disability as assessed by PW-2 doctor, the net amount comes to Rs. 3,600/- (24,000x15/100=3,600) and the correct multiplier to the age of 31 years is 16 as per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in SARALA VERMA VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION, if applied the same, total amount comes to Rs. 57,600/- (3,600 x 16 = 57,600/-) . An amount of Rs. 10,000/- is granted towards medical bills. Thus the total amount of compensation awarded comes to Rs. 67,600/-. 6. The Supreme Court also in HARDEO KAUR VS. RAJASTHAN STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION 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, an amount of Rs. 67,600/- is now granted towards compensation for the injuries sustained by the claimant. 8. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the claimant is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date : 18.11.2010 KA 2009 (6) SCALE 129 AIR 1992 SC 1261