THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A C.M.A.No.1054 of 2005 JUDGMENT: The appellant-claimant filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the order, dated 01.03.2005, passed in O.P.No.242 of 2002 by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Medak at Siddipet. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 31.07.2000 at 8.50 PM, while the claimant along with others was travelling in an auto bearing No.AP 21-T-2107 from Dharmaram village towards Mirdoddi and when it reached near Arepally village outskirts, the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-10-Z- 3382, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the auto, due to which, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. He filed the above said O.P. against the respondent- APSRTC claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. The respondent filed counter denying the averments made in the petition. By the order impugned, the Court below awarded compensation of Rs.25,000/-to the claimant with future interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the appellant-claimant filed the present appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the claimant contended that the Court below has committed error in not considering the evidence of P.W.2-Doctor, who deposed that the claimant had sustained 35% disability and awarded less compensation to the claimant. He prays to enhance the compensation awarded by the Court below. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent- APSRTC contended that as the claimant was treated under ‘Arogya Bhadhratha Scheme’ he is not entitled to any compensation and that he has not produced any disability certificate. 5. The claimant-PW1 stated that in the accident he sustained crush injury and his left leg was fractured and injuries on his head, left thigh etc., and that he took treatment in Gandhi Hospital and later referred to NIMS hospital, wherein an operation was done and rod was inserted to his left leg. P.W.2-the Medical Officer of NIMS hospital stated that the claimant sustained fracture on his right leg and that the fracture was treated conservatively and skin grafting was done by plastic surgery on 05.09.2000 and that he determined 35% disability to the claimant. He has also stated that Exs.A1 to A8-bills worth Rs.38,199/- were issued by NIMS Hospital. P.W.2 admitted in his cross-examination that the claimant was treated under ‘Arogya Bhadhratha Scheme’. From the evidence of P.W.2, it is clear that the claimant was treated in NIMS hospital for his fracture injury and skin grafting was done by plastic surgery. Though the claimant was treated under ‘Arogya Bhadhratha Scheme’ and no disability certificate is filed, P.W.2, the qualified Medical Officer of NIMS, who treated the claimant, has stated that the claimant had sustained 35% disability. Therefore, it can be taken into account. In HARDEO KAUR v. RAJASTHAN STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1] the Apex Court held as under: “the determination of compensation in respect of injury cases must be liberal and the amount of compensation to 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 previous 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.” Following the said judgment of the Apex Court, I am inclined to award a sum of Rs.60,000/- as compensation to the claimant. Thus, the compensation is enhanced from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.60,000/-. The order of the Court below in all other aspects shall remain unaltered. The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till realization. 6. With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. No costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:19.08.2010 sj [1] AIR 1992 SC 1261