HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MA C.M.A.No. 3634 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the order dated 24.2.2006 passed by the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court) cum XIX Additional Chief Judge, City Criminal Court, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Court below’) in OP No. 2021 of 2003 filed by the appellant-claimant claiming compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that occurred on 14.10.2002 at about 3.40 PM when he along with his wife and daughter going to Narsaraopet from Hyderabad in an Ambassador Car bearing No. AP- 9V-4919 and when the said car reached near Gudur Village near Sai Krishna Rice Mill, the driver of the said car drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and lost control over the vehicle and dashed to the tree on the left side of the road, due to which, the claimant sustained serious injuries. Respondents 1, being owner of the Ambassador Car bearing No. AP 9V-4919 remained exparte 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 having held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Ambassador Car bearing No. AP 9V- 4919, and taking into consideration the evidence of the claimant that he sustained fracture of right tibial condiac, fracture of right clerical, multiple fracture of right rib, right haemohorrage, fracture of left cabula, small haemohorrage contusion of right fronter lobe and other injuries on all over the body and also taking into consideration the evidence of PW-2 doctor who treated the claimant and assessed the disability at 25% awarded a sum of Rs. 92,000/- with interest at 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant contended that the Court below wrongly fixed the earnings of the claimant on lower side and wrongly granted less compensation. He also submits that the Court below failed to grant compensation by multiplier method for future earnings on the account of disability at 25% sustained by the claimant and it failed to grant compensation towards transportation, attendant charges, and 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 Ambassador Car bearing No. AP 9V 4919 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 he used to earn Rs. 8,000/- per month as a journalist and to that affect he submitted Ex. A-9 salary certificate issued by General Manager of A.P. Express Media Service Private Limited showing the designation and salary of the claimant. PW-2 doctor who treated the claimant assessed the permanent disability at 25%. The injuries sustained by PW-1 are grievous in nature and limping taken place due to the injury on right tibia and Exs. X1 and X2 are the case sheets of PW-1. In his cross examination also it is elicited that PW-1 suffered right haemothorax fracture of left stapula. A small haemorrohage contusion over right frontal and other injuries all over the body and ICD is inserted on 17.11.2003. Hence, taking into consideration the above facts, that the injured was earning Rs. 8,000/- per month as a Journalist, per annum it comes to Rs. 96,000/- and out of that 25% disability if deducted the amount comes to Rs. 24,000/- (96,000x25/100 = 24,000/-) and the age of the claimant is 46 years, the relevant multiplier to the age group 46 years to 50 years is ’13’ 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. 3,12,000/- (24,000x13=3,12,000). An amount of Rs. 10,000 is granted towards medial expenses and Rs. 10,000/- is granted towards pain and suffering. Thus the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 3,32,000/-. As the claim of the claimant is only Rs. 3,00,000/- the amount now granted is restricted to Rs. 3,00,000/-. 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 amount granted by the Court below is enhanced from Rs. 92,000/- to Rs. 3,00,000/- towards compensation for the injuries sustained by him. 8. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the claimant is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date : 18.11.2010 KA [1] 2009 (6) SCALE 129 [2] AIR 1992 SC 1261