THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A. No.3124 of 2004 ORDER: This appeal by the claimant is directed against the order and decree dated 18.04.2002 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Nalgonda, in O.P.No.300 of 1999, whereby a compensation of Rs.40,000/- was awarded to the appellant/claimant for the injuries sustained by him. 2 . Brief facts of the case are that on 10.02.1999, when the appellant/claimant, who was employed in Railway Protection Force, and another were going on a Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing No.AP-4B-100, and near Nagarjuna Industries at Miryalaguda, the offending auto rikshaw bearing No.AP-24T-9472 belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motor cycle of the claimant, resulting multiple injuries and compound fracture of both bones of his right leg, injuries on hand, chest etc. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Miryalaguda, and thereafter, treated at NIMS and in a private hospital at Miryalaguda. Due to the said accident, the claimant became disabled. Hence, he filed the claim petition before the Tribunal claiming a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. 3. To prove his claim, the claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-11, copies of F.I.R, wound certificate, charge sheet, driving licence of driver of crime vehicle, insurance policy, driving licence of the claimant, discharge record issued in NIMS, O.P. card issued in NIMS, Bunch of Medical Bills, certificate issued by Senior Security Commissioner, S.C.R, Vijayawada and X-rays. On behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 4. The Tribunal, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record, observed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto and because of the said accident, the claimant sustained fracture of both bones of right leg. Regarding the quantum of compensation, as the entire payment to NIMS does not show more than Rs.10,000/- and since the claimant has not filed any document to show that he was on continuous leave during that period disabling him to attend the duties, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses and attendance, and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of earnings. In total the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards compensation with subsequent interest @9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Both owner and insurance company were made jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, the claimant filed the present appeal. 5 . Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent. 6. As seen from the record, it is no doubt true that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending auto rickshaw. The claimant filed a copy of wound certificate-Ex.A.2, which goes to show that he has got fracture of both bones of right leg, discharge card from NIMS-Ex.A.7 showing that he was in the Hospital from 11.03.1999 to 15.03.1999, O.P. Card from NIMS- Ex.A.8, which does not show any disability and bunch of medical bills-Ex.A.9. 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.” 7 . In the instant case, even though the claimant has not adduced any evidence to show that he was put to any disability and there is no opinion that he shall not move from the bed or otherwise, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in HARDEO KAUR’s case (supra), I deem it appropriate to enhance the amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.40,000/- towards pain and suffering and from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.30,000/- towards medical expenses. Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of earnings remains unaltered. 8. Accordingly, the C.M.A. is allowed in part by enhancing the compensation from Rs.40,000/- to Rs.75,000/- which shall carry interest @ 7% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realization. No costs. _______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J 17th September, 2010 va [1] AIR 1992 SC 1261