HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.NO. 1716 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 27.11.2003 passed by the II Additional Chief Judge -cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal ’) in OP No. 574 of 2000 filed by the claimant claiming compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- for the injuries- sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 04.1.2000 at about 12.30 PM when the claimant and his family members were proceeding in Tata Sumo Jeep bearing No. MH 31Z 4985 from Nizamabad towards Hyderabad side and when they reached near Ramanthapur Village, Chegunta Mandal, Medak District, the driver of the said vehicle drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against a stone. Due to which, the vehicle turned turtle and the claimant and others were sustained grievous injuries beside fractures. The first respondent owner of the Tata Sumo Jeep bearing No. MH 31Z 4985 remained ex parte and the second respondent insurer of the said vehicle filed its counter denying the averments made in the petition. 2. The Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tata Sumo Jeep and taking into considering the relevant material on record, awarded a sum of Rs. 66,000/- towards compensation to the claimant with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit of the amount. 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 Tribunal failed to appreciate and consider that the claimant sustained fracture of Zygoma segmental, fracture of right ulna of femur (left) injury to spine, injury to right chin and loss of tooth by incurring more than 50,000/- on treatment and operation, physiotherapy and medical expenditure. He also submitted that the Tribunal erred in awarding a meager sum of Rs. 7,000/- towards pain and suffering, extra nourishment and transportation when the appellant needs another surgery for removing the implants and has to undergo physiotherapy with heavy pain. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the Tribunal rightly awarded the compensation taking into consideration the facts on record therefore, there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the entire material made available on record. 6. As seen from the record, the accident occurred on 04.1.2000 at about 12.30 PM when the claimant and his family members were proceeding in Tata Sumo Jeep bearing No. MH 31Z 4985 from Nizamabad towards Hyderabad side and when they reached near Ramanthapur Village, Chegunta Mandal, Medak District, the driver of the said vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against a stone. Due to which, the vehicle turned turtle and the claimant sustained grievous injuries beside fractures. PW-2 doctor deposed that he initially treated the claimant in Gandhi Hospital on 5.1.2000 and an operation- Rush nailing was done and claimant was discharged on 11.1.2000. He further asserted in his evidence in chief that both himself and Dr. Vijaya Rama Rao treated the injured and physiotherapy was advised. Therefore, in my considered view that ends of justice would be met if Rs. 15,000/- is granted towards pain and suffering instead of Rs. 7,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- towards medical expenses instead of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 8,000/- towards injuries instead of Rs. 4,000/- as granted by the Tribunal. Thus the total amount now awarded comes to Rs. 22,000/- (8,000+10,000+4,000=22,000) in addition to the amount already granted by the Tribunal viz., 66,000/- totaling to Rs. 88,000/- (22,000+66,000=88,000). 7. 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.” 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 awarded by the Tribunal from Rs. 66,000/- to Rs. 88,000/-. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 24.2.2011 KA [1] AIR 1992 SC 1261