Telangana High Court
Lavanga Rani, Nizamabad Dist 4 Others vs Gunta Santhosh Kumar, Karimnagar Dist ... on 28 April, 2022
Author: G. Sri Devi
Bench: G. Sri Devi
HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
M.A.C.M.A.No.389 of 2015
JUDGMENT:
Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the order and decree, dated 28.11.2014, passed in M.V.O.P.No.563 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (I Additional District Judge), Nizamabad (for short "the Tribunal"), the appellants/claimants preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- on account of death of the deceased-Lavanga Meenaiah, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 03.08.2009, due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of Auto Trolley bearing No.AP 15 Y 6114 near Battiwada, Gollapally Road, Jagtial.
4. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent remained ex parte. The 2nd respondent filed counter denying all the averments made in 2 GSD, J Macma_389_2015 the claim-petition including the manner in which the accident took place, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is also stated that the driver of the Auto Trolley was not holding valid and effective licence at the time of the alleged accident and that the quantum of compensation claimed is excessive and baseless and prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:-
1. Whether the accident occurred on 03.08.2009 at about 3.30 p.m., due to rash and negligent driving of the Auto Trolley No.AP 15 Y 6114 by its driver?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. To what relief?
6. On behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A11 and Exs.X1 and X2 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B5 were marked.
3
GSD, J Macma_389_2015
7. After considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident was occurred due to the negligent driving of the driver of the Auto Trolly and arrived the total compensation at Rs.10,89,000/- but restricted the compensation amount to Rs.8,00,000/- on the ground that the claimants claimed only Rs.8,00,000/-. Challenging the same, the present appeal came to be filed by the claimants seeking enhancement.
8. Heard and perused the record.
9. The learned Counsel for the appellants-claimants has contended that the Tribunal having arrived at that the claimants are entitled to the total compensation of Rs.10,89,000/- ought not to have restricted the same to Rs.8,00,000/- merely because the claim made in the O.P. was Rs.8,00,000/-. He further submits that even though the claimants sought meager amount, it is the duty of the Tribunal to grant just compensation over and above the claimed amount, if they are entitled to and in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh1 the 1 (2003) 2 SCC 274 4 GSD, J Macma_389_2015 claimants are entitled to more compensation and prayed to enhance the same.
10. The contention of the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2-Insurance Company is that as the Tribunal granted the total amount claimed by the appellants-claimants, the appellants-claimants cannot be said to be the aggrieved persons within the meaning of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act and hence, they cannot challenge the order of the Tribunal in the present appeal and prayed to dismiss the appeal.
11. There is no dispute with regard to the manner of the accident and the rash and negligent driving of the offending Lorry by its driver in causing the accident.
12. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, it is clear from the material available on record that the Tribunal has taken into consideration the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, and following the procedure enunciated in law, arrived at the compensation entitled to by the claimants. However, as the claimants sought compensation, which is obviously lower in quantum than the calculated compensation, the Tribunal 5 GSD, J Macma_389_2015 had awarded the compensation sought by the claimants, giving rise to the present appeal whereunder the action of the Tribunal in restricting the compensation to the amount claimed, though they apparently are eligible to higher quantum of compensation, is challenged before this Court.
13. Under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, there is no restriction that compensation could be awarded only upto the amount claimed by the claimants. In an appropriate case, where from the evidence brought on record, if Tribunal/Court considers that claimants are entitled to get more compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass such award. Thus, the approach of the learned Tribunal in determining compensation only on the basis of amount of compensation claimed in the claim-petition and not appreciating the evidence led by the claimants is incorrect. Further, as per the decision of the Apex Court in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh and others (supra), there is no restriction for the Tribunal/Court in awarding compensation amount exceeding the claimed amount. Further, in appropriate cases, the Court may permit amendment to the claim-petition. 6
GSD, J Macma_389_2015
14. In the instant case, the claimants filed I.A.No.1 of 2015 seeking permission to amend the claim amount from Rs.8,00,000/- to Rs.11,00,000/- for the purpose of enhancement.
15. In Ramla and others v. National Insurance Company Limited and others2 the Apex Court held that there is no restriction in awarding compensation amount exceeding the claimed amount, since, the function of the Tribunal or Court under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is to award 'just compensation'. The Motor Vehicles Act is the beneficial and welfare legislation. A 'just compensation' is one which is reasonable on the basis of the evidence produced on record.
16. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court referred to above, this Court is of the opinion that the claimants are entitled to the compensation arrived at by the Tribunal.
17. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part. The claimants are entitled to Rs.10,89,000/- i.e., the compensation arrived at by the Tribunal, together with interest @ 7.5% per 2 (2019) 2 SCC 192 7 GSD, J Macma_389_2015 annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation, payable by the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally. The said amount shall be apportioned in the manner as ordered by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. However, the claimants are directed to deposit the Deficit Court Fee.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
__________________ JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI 28.04.2022 gkv