HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A.NO. 2807 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 13.07.2005 passed by the V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Court below’) in OP No. 1842 of 2001 filed by the claimant claiming compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- for the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 4.7.2001 at about 1.30 PM when the claimant was going on the Motor Cycle bearing No. AIY 2937, a lorry bearing No. AP 11 U 4882 came in a rash and negligent manner driven by its driver dashed against the motor cycle of the claimant from behind and due to which, the claimant fell down from the motor cycle and received grievous injuries all over the body. The first respondent owner of the lorry bearing No. AP 11 U 4882 remained ex-parte and the second respondent insurer of the lorry field its counter denying the averments made in the petition. 2. The Tribunal held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing registration No. AP 11U 4882 by its driver belonging to the first respondent, insured with the second respondent and both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal also taking into consideration the evidence available on record, granted total compensation of Rs. 2,11,776/-with interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the claimant. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant contended that the Court below wrongly granted less compensation without appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record. He submits that the Court below failed to grant compensation by taking the earnings of the appellant at Rs. 1500/- per month, which is less when compared to the amount getting an ordinary labourer and it failed to grant compensation towards transportation, future medical treatment, and extra nourishment. He also submits that the learned Judge failed to award the amount as claimed inspite of the evidence on record and therefore amount awarded deserves to be enhanced. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the order of the Tribunal is quite reasonable and there is no need to interfere with the order with regard to quantum of compensation but as far as rate of interest is concerned, the same may be reduced. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the entire material made available on record. 6. It is evident from the record that the accident occurred on 4.7.2001 at about 1.30 PM when the claimant was going on the Motor Cycle bearing No. AIY 2937, a lorry bearing No. AP 11 U 4882 came in a rash and negligent manner driven by its driver dashed against the motorcycle of the claimant from behind and due to which, the claimant fell down from the motorcycle and received grievous injuries all over the body. PW-3, Orthopedic Surgeon attached to NIMS hospital, also in his evidence stated that the claimant was admitted in NIMS Hospital on 4.7.2001 and he sustained fracture of both bones of his left leg and that his left leg was amputated below knee and that the claimant is having 50% partial permanent disability, Ex. A11 is the disability certificate issued by Dr.S.Venkat Raman assessing the partial permanent disability at 70%. The claimant was earning Rs. 5,000/- by doing buffing works. Therefore, ends of justice would be met if Rs. 2,500/- per month is taken as his earnings and per annum it comes to Rs. 30,000/-. Out of that 50% disability if deducted, the amount comes to Rs. 15,000/-. The claimant is aged about 32 years, the relevant multiplier is ‘16’ as per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in SMT SARALA VERMA AND OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANTOEHR[1] and if applied the correct multiplied, the total amount comes to Rs. 2,40,000/- (15,000x16=2,40,000). The other heads granted by the Court below viz., an amount of Rs. 35,276/- towards extra nourishment and medicines, an amount of Rs. 15,000/- towards pain and suffering, an amount of Rs. 5,000/- towards attendant charges, an amount of Rs. 1,500/- towards loss of earnings and Rs. 2,000/- towards transportation shall not be disturbed and the same shall be remained as it is. Thus the Total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 2,98,776/- (2,40,000 + 35,276 + 2,000 + 1,500 + 5,000 + 15,000 = 2,98,776). 7. 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.” 8. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above judgment, and also taking into consideration facts and circumstances of the case, this appeal is allowed in part enhancing the compensation granted by the Tribunal from Rs. 2,11,776/- to Rs. 2,98,776/- and reducing the rate of interest from 8% per annum to 7% per annum on the enhanced compensation. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 17.2.2011 KA [1] 2009 (6) SCALE 129 [2] AIR 1992 SC 1261