THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A.No. 3006 of 2005 JUDGMENT: This appeal by the claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) is directed against the order dated 03.08.2005 in M.V.O.P No.3 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Kurnool. The claimant seek enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The claimant is the appellant who filed the O.P. before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in an accident that occurred on 16.11.2001 at about 06.30 p.m. On that day, while he and another were returning to Pedda Tumbalam village from Chinna Tumbalam village on their respective bicycles on the extreme left side of the road and when they were proceeding near Kosigi cross roads, a lorry bearing No.GJ 3V 9259 driven by its driver in a high speed came from behind and hit the bicycle of the claimant. The claimant fell down and received severe injuries to his right hand, which resulted in amputation of his right hand. According to the claimant, the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. The first respondent is the owner of the lorry, which is insured with the second respondent. The first respondent remained ex parte before the Tribunal. The second respondent – Insurance Company filed a counter-affidavit before the Tribunal denying all the material allegations. On the strength of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the appropriate issues. On behalf of the claimant, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and marked Exs.A-1 to A-5 – certified copies of F.I.R, wound certificate, charge sheet, calender and judgment in C.C.No.12 of 2002 and a photo with negative. On behalf of the insurance company, though no witness was examined, Ex.B-1 - Insurance Policy was marked. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending lorry and that due to the accident the claimant received grievous injuries which resulted in amputation of his right hand and therefore, the claimant is entitled to receive compensation. The Tribunal took the notional income of the claimant at Rs.15,000/- per annum as per the Act and since the claimant was aged 30 years, the Tribunal applied the multiplier ‘17’. Accordingly, the compensation comes to Rs.2,55,000/- (15000 X 17). Observing that the loss of limb results in loss of efficiency up to 50%, the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,27,500/- as compensation to the claimant. The Tribunal awarded a further sum of Rs.10,000/- for pain and suffering and medicines. In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,37,500/- towards compensation with proportionate costs and interest at 9% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till actual deposit. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contended that though at the time of the accident, the claimant was earning Rs.100/- per day as a hamali, which comes to Rs.3,000/- per month, the Tribunal has taken the notional income of the claimant at Rs.15,000/- per annum only. The learned counsel for the second respondent – Insurance Company contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is quite reasonable and needs no interference. There is no dispute with regard to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the crime vehicle. 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 Learned Judges or Courts. When the compensation is awarded by the Courts and Learned Judges 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.” The claimant claimed to be working as a hamali at the time of the accident and earning Rs.100/- per day, which comes to Rs.3,000/- per month, but in this regard, no evidence was produced by him. In the circumstances, the income of the deceased can be taken at Rs.2,000/- per month, which in my view would meet the ends of justice. Insofar as the disability is concerned, it is claimed and proved by the claimant that his right hand below elbow was amputated. Therefore, as rightly taken by the Tribunal, the disability can be taken at 50%. Thus, the income of the claimant is taken at Rs.1,000/- (50% of Rs.2,000/-) per month, which comes to Rs.12,000/- per annum towards loss of earnings. Since the age of the claimant was 30 years at the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier for the said age group, as per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[2] and as rightly applied by the Tribunal, is 17. Thus, the compensation towards 50% disability comes to Rs.2,04,000/- (12000 x 17). In addition to the said amount, this Court awards a further sum of Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses and the further sum awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering shall remain as it is. Therefore, in all, the compensation comes to Rs.2,24,000/-. Thus, the compensation awarded by Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.1,37,500/- to Rs.2,24,000/-, which shall carry interest at 7% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realisation. With the above modification, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J 03rd February, 2011 GHN [1] AIR 1992 SC 1261 [2] 2009 (6) SCALE 129