Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
B.H. Nagarathana (Smt.) & Ors. vs Kanataka State Road Transport ... on 16 July, 1998
Equivalent citations: I(1999)ACC633, 1999ACJ1472, 1998(5)ALD104, 1998(4)ALT669
Author: A.S. Bhate
Bench: A.S. Bhate
ORDER A.S. Bhate, J.
1. This appeal is directed against award in MV OP No.682 of 1994 decided by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Tirupati on 17-3-1997. After hearing the arguments for the learned Counsel we are not inclined to admit the appeal and it deserves to be dismissed at the threshold for brief reasons to follow :
The appellants had made a claim before the Tribunal for compensation of Rs.3,50,000/-. Appellant No. 1 is the widow and appellants 2 and 3 are minor children while appellant Nos.4 and 5 are the parents of deceased B.H. Gururaj, who met with a fatal accident which took place on 13-5-1994. The vehicle involved in the said fatal accident was A.P. State Road Transport Corporation's Bus. The Tribunal accepted the claim of the claimants for compensation in full and awarded all the compensation that was claimed i.e., amount of Rs.3,50,000/- with interest on the said amount at 12% from the date of petition till date of realisation. Inspite of the Award having been passed by the Tribunal wholly in favour of the appellant, now the appellants have preferred this appeal.
2. The short question is whether the appeal is maintainable though there is no finding adverse to the appellants in the Award made by the Tribunal ?
3. Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') provides as to when an appeal lies against the Award passed by the Claims Tribunal. It runs as follows :
"(1) Subject to the provisions of subsection (2), any person aggrieved by an award of a Claims Tribunal may, within ninety days from the date of the award, prefer an appeal to the High Court :
.....
Provided further that the High Court may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of ninety days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time."
.....
4. It is clear from a reading of this section that any person aggrieved by an Award can prefer an appeal to this Court. By no stretch of imagination it can be said that the appellants are aggrieved by the Award passed by the Tribunal, In the Act, there is no definition of "person aggrieved". Section 2 of the Act incorporates the definitions for purposes of the Act. What is argued by the learned Counsel for the appellants is some what novel. He submits that though the appellants had claimed Rs.3,50,000/- by way of compensation under Section 168 of the Act, the Tribunal could have made an Award determining the amount of compensation which appeared to it to be just- It is argued that in the body of the Award the Tribunal found that the appellants could have in fact claimed much more than Rs.3,50,000/-. In view of this observation of the Tribunal, it is argued that the appellants feel aggrieved that the Tribunal did not pass an Award for a higher amount though the appellants had restricted their claim to Rs.3,50,000/-. The learned Counsel argues that the learned single Judge of this Court in New India Assurance Company Limited v. G. Lakshmi, , has held that the Tribunal can grant amount of compensation in excess of what is claimed, if the Tribunal finds that such excess amount is a just compensation. Apart from the fact that the said judgment of the learned single Judge has not become final, as an appeal is pending in this very Court against the said judgment, we do not think that the said judgment even if assumed to be correct proposition of law, has any relevance to decide the rights of appellant to file an appeal. The said judgment at best, clarifies the ambit of jurisdiction of the Tribunal. It does not have any relevance to determine the right to file an appeal under Section 173 of the Act. The question whether the appellants are aggrieved or not, cannot be resolved by reference to that judgment. When the appellants claimed a particular sum and when the whole claim has been granted, it would be far-fetched to say that the appellants arc still aggrieved because the Court had jurisdiction to grant a larger amount. May be that the appellants felt disappointed when they came to know that they could have claimed larger amount. It is settled legal position that feeling of disappointment is not equivalent to "to be aggrieved". Unless the judicial decision challenged is adverse to the person challenging the same, it cannot be said that the person can claim himself to be aggrieved. Even though the Tribunal had power to give a relief larger than what was claimed, that in no way meant that the Award, passed wholly in favour of the petitioner, gives a ground of grievance to the petitioner. In a given case even though the petitioner is entitled to a larger relief it is the right of the petitioner to restrict it to a limited relief. He can give up larger relief. It is for the petitioner to claim by appropriate amendment the relief if he wants a larger relief. He cannot make a grievance that the Court had jurisdiction to give a larger amount though he asked for a lesser relief and on that account he feels aggrieved.
5. Having regard to the scope of Section 173 of the Act and having regard to the natural meaning of the word "person aggrieved", we are of the opinion that the appellants did not fall under the category of "person aggrieved" for purposes of filing appeal. The impugned Award is wholly in favour of the appellants and as appellants cannot be said to be persons aggrieved, the appeal is not tenable in law and is dismissed.