HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No. 1289 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the order dated 16.03.2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in MVOP No. 272 of 2001 filed by the appellant-claimant claiming compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that occurred on 24.1.2001 at about 11.45 AM when he was traveling in an auto rickshaw bearing No. AP 21T-8008, from new bus stand towards Kallur, the driver of the auto rickshaw drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against a rickshaw coming in the opposite direction with iron grill. As a result of which, the iron grill struck the claimant causing grievous injury to his left wrist. First respondent being owner of the Auto Rickshaw remained ex parte and the second respondent, being insurer filed its counter denying the averments made in the petition. 2. The Tribunal having held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto rickshaw and the auto rickshaw got valid coverage of insurance from the second respondent-Insurance Company and also taking into consideration the evidence of PW-2, who is Assistant Professor, Orthopeadic, stated that claimant suffers from weakness in the right palm and lost full capacity to hold a grip on an object, therefore, the claimant sustained permanent disability of 15% to 20% and granted Rs. 22,327/- towards compensation with interest at 12% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant filed the present appeal. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant contended that the Tribunal erred in calculating the loss of future income by applying multiplier method and fixed the loss of income as per the disability of the claimant as the claimant sustained permanent disability of 20% as deposed by PW-2, doctor and ought to have considered the disability and granted some more amount under this head. He also contended that the Tribunal erred in not granting any amount under the head of pain and suffering. 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 rickshaw bearing No. AP21T-8007 by its driver, the accident occurred and due to which iron grill struck the petitioner causing grievous injury to his left wrist. The claimant was hale and healthy before the accident . Due to injuries viz., lacerated injury of 10 cm x 2 cm across right wrist joint extending into the palm with fracture in the right radius, the claimant suffers from weakness in the right palm and lost full capacity to hold a grip on an object, therefore, he sustained permanent disability of 15% to 20%. The Claimant being the jeep driver, his salary can be taken as 3,000/- per month and per annum it comes to Rs. 36,000/-. If deducted 20% disability, the total disability comes to Rs. 7,200/- and for the age of 28 years the appropriate multiplier is 17 as per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in SMT. SARALA VERMA AND OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER[1]. Hence, on application of appropriate multiplier, the loss of earning comes to Rs. 1,22,400/- (7,200 x 17 = 1,22,400). The Supreme Court 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. 6. In the circumstances and also in view of the above judgment, the amount of compensation now granted is Rs. 1,22,400/-. 7. In NAGAPPA VS. GURUDAYAL SINGH[3], the Apex Court also observed as under: “Under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, there is no restriction that compensation could be awarded only up to the amount claimed by the claimant. In an appropriate case where from the evidence brought on record if Tribunal/Court considers that claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass such award. Only embargo is – it should be ‘just’ compensation that is to say, it should be neither arbitrary, fanciful nor unjustifiable from the evidence. This would be clear by reference to the relevant provisions of the M.V. Act. Section 166 provides that an application for compensation arising out of an accident involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both, could be made (a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or (b) by the owner of the property; or (c) where death has resulted from the accident by all or any of the legal representatives of the occasion or (d) by any agent duly authorized by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be. Under the proviso to sub section (1), all the legal representatives of the deceased who have not joined as the claimants are to be impleaded as respondents to the application for compensation. Other important part of the said section is sub section (4) which provides that ‘the Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under sub section (6) of section 158 as an application for compensation under this Act’. Hence, claims Tribunal is appropriate case can treat the report forwarded to it as an application for compensation even though no such claim is made or no specified amount is claimed.” 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the above decision, I am of the considered opinion that the claimants are entitled to a just compensation of Rs. 1,22,400/- under all the heads, as stated above. 9. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the claimant is allowed awarding total compensation of Rs.1,22,400/-. As far as the interest is concerned, the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal at 12% per annum is reduced to 7% per annum. However, it is made clear that since the Court fee is paid only to an extent of Rs. 77,673/-, the claimant is directed to pay the remaining Court fee on the enhanced compensation. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date : 12.8.2010 KA [1] 2009 (6) SCALE 129 [2] AIR 1992 SC 1261 [3] 2003(1) ALD –1(SC)