Madhya Pradesh High Court
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Hari Kishan And Ors. on 13 February, 2003
Equivalent citations: II(2003)ACC357, 2005ACJ1368
Author: Uma Nath Singh
Bench: Uma Nath Singh, Rajendra Menon
JUDGMENT Uma Nath Singh, J.
1. This is an appeal by insurance company against the award of compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,09,000 by the learned Third Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ashok Nagar, District Guna, in Claims Case No. 17 of 1994, which has exceeded Rs. 86,000, the quantum of compensation claimed before the Tribunal.
2. The main submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is confined to a point that the learned Tribunal ought not to have given excess compensation in question when the same did not form a part of the pleadings. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on a latest decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh, 2003 ACJ 12(SC), but the same decision has also clarified the point in issue in para 21, which reads as under:
"For the reasons discussed above, in our view, under Motor Vehicles Act, there is no restriction that Tribunal/court cannot award compensation amount exceeding the claimed amount. The function of the Tribunal/court is to award 'just' compensation which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record. Further, in such cases there is no question of claim becoming time-barred or it cannot be contended that by enhancing the claim there would be a change of cause of action. It is also to be stated that as provided under Sub-section (4) to Section 166, even a report submitted to the Claims Tribunal under Sub-section (6) of Section 158 can be treated as an application for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. If required, in appropriate cases, the court may permit an amendment to the claim petition...."
3. Thus, there is no ambiguity that to meet the ends of justice, so also to arrive at the 'just' compensation, the court is empowered to award an amount exceeding the amount claimed.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has also assailed the award of interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum, placing reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2001 ACJ 428(SC).
5. The case referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant does not apply in the facts and circumstances of the present case for the reason that in the case under reference the Tribunal had dismissed the claims case and the compensation was awarded only by the Hon'ble Apex Court and, therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to award prevalent rate of interest, i.e., 9 per cent per annum. In the instant case, learned Tribunal has already awarded the interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum prevalent at that time. Thus, the same need not be disturbed in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
6. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the miscellaneous appeal which is hereby dismissed.