HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MA C.M.A.No. 3255 of 2000 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the order dated 7.11.2001 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum I Additional District Judge, Cuddapah (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in MVOP No. 629 of 2000 filed by the appellant- claimant claiming compensation of Rs. 75,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident occurred on 21.1.2000 at about 2 PM when he was going from Rayachoti to Sakibanda on his scooter and when he reached Muralamitta one jeep bearing No. AP 16 H-8137 belonging to the first respondent, in a rash and negligent manner driven by its driver coming from opposite direction and dashed his Kinetic Safari. Respondents 1 being owner of the jeep remained ex parte and the second respondent, being insurer filed its counter denying the averments made in the petition stating that the owner of the jeep has violated the terms and conditions of the policy and hired the jeep. 2. The Tribunal having held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Jeep, and taking into consideration the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and also the documents marked as Exs A-1 to A4 , awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation with interest at 12% per annum payable by the first respondent- owner of the jeep alone, 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 ought to have held that the second respondent –Insurance Company is also liable to pay the compensation jointly along with first respondent- Owner of the vehicle, as there is third party insurance to the jeep of the first respondent. He also contended that the Tribunal failed to award compensation as per the multiplier formula and failed to take note that the claimant suffered 30% of permanent disability due to the accident. 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 Jeep bearing No. AP16/H- 8137 by its driver, accident occurred and due to which, the claimant fell down and sustained serious injuries. The claimant was hale and healthy and he is a registered medical practitioner. He used to earn Rs. 4,000/- per month. Due to the injury to his ear he became permanently hearing impaired. He is not able to discharge his normal duties. The claimant sustained injuries on his right side of the shoulder, and leg and a bleeding injury in the ear. Claimant himself was examined as PW-1, he deposed that he sustained fracture to his right shoulder, on the back of his head, blood was oozing from the left ear and right leg was fractured. In support of his oral version he filed Ex. A2 wound certificate, disability certificate Ex. A4. PW-2 doctor, who examined PW-1 and deposed that claimant-PW-1 is suffering from headache and giddiness from the date of injury and post traumatic epilepsy developed due to head injury and at the time of injury bleeding from left ear present and it is due to skull fracture. He sustained 30% permanent disability. His present disability corresponds to the injuries described in the wound certificate are as under: “(1). Contusion cum abrasion over frontal region 4x3 cm. (2) Lacerated injury infront of ® leg 5 cm x ½ cm x 1/3 cm. (3) Bleeding from (L) ear present.” 6. Considering the above documentary evidence, in my view, the Tribunal is erred in calculating the disability. The claimant sustained 30% permanent disability, if deducted from the earnings of the claimant comes to Rs. 14,400/-( 4,000x12=48,000 x30/100). As per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in SMT. SARALA VERMA AND OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER[1], the appropriate multiplier for the age of 40 years is 15. Quantified on the said multiplier, the loss of earnings comes to Rs. 2,16,000/- (14,400 x 15=2,16,000). 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. 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 decisions, I am of the considered opinion that the claimant is entitled to a just compensation of Rs. 2,16,000/- under all the heads, as stated above. 9. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the claimant is allowed awarding the total compensation of Rs.2,16,000/-. 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. The Owner of the Jeep Bearing No. AP 16 H 8137 is liable to pay the said compensation with proportionate costs and interest at 7% per annum on the enhanced compensation, as the Tribunal has rightly exonerated the liability of the Insurance Company. However, it is made clear that since the Court fee is paid only to an extent of Rs. 55,000/-, 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)