HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MA C.M.A.No. 4594 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: United India Insurance Company is the appellant who filed the appeal challenging the award and decree passed in MVOP No. 720 of 2001 dated 04.11.2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by her as against which, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,25,000/-. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 23.2.2000 while the claimant and her grand don Tanmayi Dattar were returning to their house in the auto bearing No. AP 13 V 4021, a lorry of the first respondent bearing No. AET 704 being driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner came from the opposite direction towards wrong side and hit the auto. As a result of which, the auto over turned and the claimant and her grandson received grievous injuries. The claimant sustained fracture of lower jaw, upper jaw coupled with loss of teeth apart from other injuries and took treatment in CDR hospital initially and later on in Medwin Hospital by spending Rs. 75,000/-and still she is unable to chew food, injuries resulted disfiguration of her face and she got permanent disability of 60%. Hence she laid a claim claiming compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-. 3. The first respondent- Owner of the lorry remained ex parte and the second respondent-Insurance Company filed its counter denying the allegations made in the petition about the accident and the manner in which it is said to have occurred and the very involvement of the lorry in the accident and the amount claimed is highly excessive. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial. 1. Whether the accident dt 23.2.2000 which resulted in injuries to the petitioner was due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent’s car by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? 5. On behalf of claimant, PW-1 and 2 were examined and Exs A-1 to A-34 and Ex. X1 and X2 were marked and on behalf of respondents no witnesses were examined but Ex. B1 Policy was marked by consent. 6. On consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the driver of the lorry of the first respondent caused the accident by driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner by going towards wrong side hit the auto coming on the correct side during the broad day light time. With regard to awarding of compensation, the Tribunal taking into consideration of the evidence of PW-2 and also Ex. A-27 medical bills, awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- towards permanent disability, Rs. 75,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 30,000/- towards future medical expenses, Rs. 5,000/- towards extra nourishment and Rs. 15,000/- towards pain and suffering totaling Rs. 2,25,000/-. Being aggrieved by the same the Insurance Company filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant- Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal erred in awarding a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- as compensation in the absence of any disability certificate. He also submits that the Tribunal erred in awarding Rs. 75,000/- for medical expenditure and Rs. 30,000/- for future medical expenses in the absence of any documentary evidence. 8. The point that arises for consideration is whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and proper? 9. As seen from the record, it is no doubt true that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the accident lorry and the first respondent- owner of the lorry and the appellant –Insurance Company being insurer, are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimant. As seen from the record, the Tribunal taking into consideration Ex. X2, discharge summary issued by Medwin Hospital that the claimant sustained lefort II, maxilla fracture and PW-2 Dr. B. Chandrakanth, who is the Dental Surgeon of Mahavir Hospital and Medwin Hospital stated that he treated her for her injuries and she has difficulty in speech articulation and she has to take treatment in future also by spending Rs. 1,50,000/- and his evidence shows that her chewing ability was reduced by 85%. The claimant was aged 63 years of age and she sustained fracture of both jaws and she is unable to chew food and therefore, taking the nature of injuries into consideration, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- towards permanent disability, Rs. 75,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 30,000/- towards uture medical expenses, Rs. 5,000/- towards extra nourishment and Rs. 15,000/- towards pain and suffering totaling Rs. 2,25,000/-. Hence, I see no reasons to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. 10. Be that as it may, the Supreme Court in HARDEO KAUR VS. RAJASTHAN STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1] 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.” 11. In view of the above judgment, and also in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reasons to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal and the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is liable to be dismissed. 12. As far as the rate of interest is concerned, counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal at 9% per annum is on high side and requested to reduce the same. 13. Taking into consideration catena of Supreme Court Judgments and also the prevailing current rate of interest, the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal at 9% per annum is reduced to 7% per annum. 14. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is allowed in part reducing the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal at 9% per annum to 7% per annum. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 29.07.2010 KA [1] AIR 1992 SC 1261