THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No. 4862 of 2004 JUDGMENT: Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad-cum-XVI Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad in O.P.No. 1747 of 2002 dated 24.07.2004, filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming a compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/-, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the claimant. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 04.07.2002 at about 3.00 P.M., the petitioner/claimant was travelling in the steering auto bearing No.AP 24 U 5986 from Mothkur to his village Chinna Padishala, when the said auto reached near R & B Guest House, at that time, the driver of the auto drove the vehicle with high speed in a rash and negligent manner, thereby, he lost his control over the steering, then the auto turned turtle and the petitioner and the inmates of the auto fell down. The petitioner received fracture of pelvis, fracture of left shoulder, fracture of left hand, fracture of right knee, abdominal injuries and intestines came out and there is paraplegia of right leg and other injuries on all over the body. Immediately he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad for treatment. The accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said steering auto. Hence, the appellant-petitioner filed the above said O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- for suffering permanent disability in the said accident. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte. Respondent No.2 filed counter-affidavit denying all the allegations in the petition contending that the respondent company is not aware of the criminal proceedings filed by the Station House Officer, Muthukur in Crime No.34 of 2002. The respondent is disputing the age, income of the petitioner and put the petitioner to strict proof of the same. He also contended that the claim made by the petitioner is excessive. The Tribunal having held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the auto baring No. AP24 U 5986 by its driver, awarded a sum of Rs. 67,700/- with proportionate costs payable by the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally with interest 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Aggrieved by the same, claimant filed this appeal. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Tribunal had wrongly taken the disability at 20% contrary to the evidence of Medical Officer who has deposed that the appellant is having 40% disability. Ex.A.8 is the disability certificate issued by Dr.S.Venkat Raman, Orthopaedic Surgeon showing the disability at 40%. He also contended that the Tribunal erred in awarding only Rs. 67,700/- without taking into consideration of earnings of the appellant, age, multiplier and granted less compensation towards pain and suffering, loss of future earnings of the claimant. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the order of the Tribunal is quite correct and there are no grounds to interfere with the order. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the material made available on record. As seen from the record, it is no doubt true that PW.1 deposed in his evidence while he was travelling in a steering auto bearing No.AP 24 U 5986 from Mothkur to his village, when the auto reached near R& B Guest House, the driver of the auto drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which, he lost his control, thereby the auto turned turtle and he and others, travelling in the auto, fell down. It is also on record that Ex.A.8 the disability certificate issued by Dr.S.Venkat Raman, Orthopaedic Surgeon showing the disability at 40%. In the cross-examination, the claimant himself stated that the fractures were not healed and he cannot lift weights and unable to do hard labour work. But the Tribunal taken the disability of the petitioner at 20% and assessed the compensation. Taking into consideration the fractures received by the claimant to his pelvis, left shoulder, left hand, right knee and other abdominal injuries if 30% disability is taken, the ends of justice would be met. The claimant is a labourer and his profession is toddy tapping. Therefore, his income will not be less than Rs.2,000/- per month. Therefore, the earnings of the appellant are taken as Rs.2,000/- per month and per annum it comes to Rs.24,000/-. If deducted 30% disability, the amount comes to Rs. 7,200/- (24,000 x 30/100) and for the age up to 45 years the relevant multiplier is ‘14’ as per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in SARALA VERMA VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER[1], and if applied the correct multiplier, the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 1,00,800/- (7,200x14=1,00,800). An amount of Rs. 6,053/- granted by the Tribunal towards medical expenses is enhanced from Rs.6,053/- to Rs.8,000/- and the amount granted towards pain and suffering is reduced from Rs.16,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- totaling to Rs.1,18,800/- (Rs.1,00,800 + 8000 + 10000 = Rs.1,18,800/-). 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.” In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above judgment, and also taking into consideration of facts and circumstances of the case, the amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.67,700/- to Rs.1,18,800/-. However, the interest granted by the Tribunal is reduced from 9% per annum to 7% per annum. Accordingly, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 23.09.2010 PNV [1] 2009 (6) SCALE 129 [2] AIR 1992 SC 1261