HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No. 1614 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the order dated 26.3.2004 passed by the XIII Additional Chief Judge (FTC) City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Court below’) in OP No. 1008 of 2002 filed by the claimant claiming compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/- for the injuries sustained in a motor accident that occurred on 8.4.2002 at about 12.35 p.m when the claimant was proceeding on scooter as a pillion rider from Sanga Reddy towards Pothareddipally Village and while reaching the ITI of Sang Reddy town, an auto bearing No. AP 23 V 564 came from opposite direction in high speed and dashed against the scooter and due to which the scooter fell down and the claimant received fractures to his right leg, injury to spinal cord, head injury and other multiple injures throughout his body. First respondent being owner of the auto bearing No. AP 23V 564 remained ex parte. Second respondent- United India Insurance Company Limited filed counter denying all the averments made in the petition. 2. The Tribunal held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto bearing No. AP 23V 564 belonging to the first respondent. As far as the claim of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal taking into consideration of evidence of PW 1, the claimant himself and also PW 2 who is an eye witness and PW-3, doctor , who examined the claimant and also the documents viz., Exs A1 to A9 and also Ex. B1, copy of insurance policy, awarded total compensation of Rs. 30,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit into Court. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 3. Initially the claim of the claimant is only Rs. 1,25,000/-, but subsequently the counsel appearing for the claimant filed an amendment petition MA CMA MP No. 3978 of 2010 amending the claim of the claimant and that petition is ordered by an order of this Court dated 24.09.2010. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant contended that the Tribunal erroneously awarded a meager sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards compensation and it failed to consider to award compensation on the head of future loss of earning capacity. He also submits that the court below failed to consider the percentage of disability to the extent of 30%, disability certificate issued by the Orthopeadic Surgeon of Osmania General Hospital and also Ex. A8 which is a photo clearly shows that the leg of the appellant is malunin. He further submits that the court below failed to consider the income of the appellant at Rs. 5,000/- per month as he was milk vendor and also an agriculturist. He further contended that the judgment of the Court below suffers from various infirmities and the Court below has not considered the matter in proper perspective. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the order of the Court below is quite reasonable and there is no need to interfere with the order. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the entire material made available on record. 7. As seen from the record, the accident occurred on 18.4.2002 due to rash and negligent driving of the auto bearing No. AP 23V 564 by its driver. PW-2, who is an eye witness also stated that the auto came in high speed and dashed the claimant on his back due to which he and the pillion rider of the scooter fell down and the claimant received fractures and other injuries. It is his case that his age is 28 years and he is earning Rs. 5,000/- per month by collecting milk from various persons and selling the same to the hotels and individuals. As far as the age is concerned, his age is mentioned as 28 years in Discharge Card of the Gandhi Hospital, which is marked as Ex. A-3. Further his age is also mentioned as 28 years in Handicap Certificate, which is marked as Ex. A-9. The Tribunal treated the claimant as an ordinary labour and fixed the monthly income of Rs. 2,000/- per month. The claimant produced disability certificate Ex. A-9 stating that there is disability of 30% of his right lower limb and the same is partial and permanent and the bones of right leg are in mal union. The doctor himself gave a certificate along with his X ray reports on 6.1.2004 and in that certificate the doctor has not mentioned that there was mal union of bones nor shortening of bones. In such circumstances, the Court below doubted the disability certificate given by the doctor stating that there was 30% disability. The Supreme Court in RAJESH KUMAR VS. YUDHVIR SINGH AND ANOTHER[1], with regard to disability at paragraph 11 held as under: “Unless the author of the certificate examined himself, it was not admissible in evidence. Whether the disability at 60% was calculated on the basis of the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act or otherwise is not known, it is also not known as to whether he was competent to issue such a certificate.” 8. Here in this particular case, the doctor was examined as PW-3 and gave a certificate Ex. A-9 stating that there is 30% disability of his right lower limb and the same is partial and permanent. This Court in SYED SALEED AND OTHERS VS. ABDUL SHUKUR AND ANOTEHR[2], at paragraph 15 observed as under: “Though the above case arises under the Workmens Compensation Act, the ratio laid down by the Division Bench can be made applicable to the instant case which arises under the Motor Vehicles Act since under the Motor Vehicles Act and the rules made there under, there is no requirement to prove the disability by examining the very same doctor who treated the victim and to obtain such certificate from the very same doctor. The ratio can all so be adopted since both the Acts are beneficial legislations.” 9. As per Ex. A-9, the disability of claimant is 30% and the disability is partial and permanent. Therefore, taking into consideration the evidence available on record, the ends of justice would meet if the salary of the claimant is taken as 2,500/- per month. Per annum the amount comes to Rs. 30,000/- and if calculated the disability of 30%, the loss of earning capacity comes to Rs. 9,000/-. The age of the claimant in the discharge card of the Gandhi Hospital, which is marked as Ex. A-3 and also in Handicap Certificate, which is marked as Ex. A9 was mentioned as 28 years. Hence, as per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in SARALA VERMA VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTEHR[3], the relevant multiplier for the age of 28 years is ‘17’, and if applied the amount comes to Rs. 1,53,000/- (9,000x17=1,53,000). An amount of Rs. 15,000/- is granted towards pain and suffering totaling to Rs. 1,68,000/-. The Supreme Court in HARDEO KAUR VS. RAJASTHAN STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION[4] 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.” 10. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above judgments, and also taking into consideration of facts and circumstances of the case, the amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 1,68,000/-. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 24.09.2010 KA [1] (2008) 7 SCC 305 [2] ALT 1 (2007) 648, ALD 1 (2007) 282 [3] 2009 (6) SCALE 129 [4] AIR 1992 SC 1261