THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MA C.M.A.No.748 of 2003 JUDGMENT: Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Adilabad in O.P.No. 514 of 1999 dated 17.5.2001, the present appeal has been filed. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 14.11.1998 at about 9.30 p.m. the appellant was proceeding in auto bearing NO. AP1-U-1724 from Mancherial railway station to his house and when the auto reached near Housing Board Colony, Bellampalli, it dashed another auto as its driver drove it in a rash and negligent manner in high speed, as a result of which, the appellant-petitioner fell down from the auto and received grievous injuries on his left knee joint and crush injuries on his right leg and to other parts of the body and he was shifted to area Hospital, Bellampalli where he took treatment for a period of one month and he also took treatment privately. A case in Crime No. 100/98 under Section 337 IPC was registered against the driver of the auto bearing No. AP1-U-1724. The appellant-petitioner is working as electrician in SCC Limited and earning Rs. 9,930 per month besides bonus, LTC, LLTC etc. On account of accident he become unfit to work and suffered permanent disability and incurred Rs. 50,000/- towards medical expenses. Hence, the appellant-petitioner filed the above said O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for suffering permanent disability in the said accident. 3. The first respondent-owner of the vehicle filed counter contending that the accident has not taken place on account of the negligence of the driver of the auto and the auto was insured with the second respondent-Insurance Company at the time of the accident. The second respondent-insurance company filed counter affidavit denying the manner and occurrence of the accident and stated that the compensation claimed is highly excessive. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial. 1. Whether the accident occurred on 14.11.1998 due to rash and negligent driving with a vehicle bearing No. AP-1-U-1724 (auto) by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation? If so to what amount and against which of the respondents? 3. To what relief? 5. On behalf of the appellant-petitioner, only P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents but Ex. B-1 Salary Certificate was marked. 6. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto bearing No. AP-1-U-1724 by its driver. With regard to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal considering the circumstances, towards treatment, pain and suffering and towards absence for a reasonable period, a total amount of Rs. 30,000/- and for permanent disability on account of the shortening of leg and restriction of movements of the leg another amount of Rs. 45,000/- totaling Rs. 75,000/- was granted towards compensation to the appellant-petitioner. Aggrieved by the said compensation, the appellant-petitioner preferred this appeal. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-petitioner contended that the Tribunal erred in assessing the permanent disability caused to the appellant on account of the shortening of leg and restriction of movements of the leg and as such, the compensation granted by the Tribunal is liable to be enhanced. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents contends that inasmuch as the appellant has not produced the evidence of doctor and also disability certificate, the Tribunal was right in granting the total compensation of Rs. 75,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at 9% per annum and there are no grounds to interfere with the order impugned and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused the entire material made available on record. 10. The Supreme Court in HARDEO KAUR VS. RAJASTHAN STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1] observed 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. As seen from the record, the appellant sustained injuries and the injuries sustained will continue through out his life and the consequences of the injuries are more and as a result of which he lost his job and he was declared unfit because of shortening of his leg. The Tribunal while granting compensation has not considered this vital aspect. Apart from that the doctor has to be examined and the disability sustained by the appellant has to be assessed by the doctor. These two things are missing so as to determine the compensation, which is required to be adjudicated by the Tribunal. 12. In the circumstances the matter is remitted to the Tribunal and the appellant is at liberty produce evidence of the doctor and also the disability certificate and he should be examined to prove the disability. The Tribunal is directed to consider all the above aspects and dispose of the OP within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. An opportunity is given to the respondent-Insurance Company to place any contra evidence. 13. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 17.06.2010 KA [1] AIR 1992 SC 1261