Sarika Murlidhar Waghmare Minor ... vs Gajanan Phulsingh Aade And Others
2016 Latest Caselaw 1381 Bom

                                             1                 FA NO.299 OF 2015

                 
              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY




                                                                            
                         BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                    
                                   FIRST APPEAL NO.299 of 2015

               Ku.Sarika d/o Murlidhar Waghmare,
               Age 17 years, Occupation Education,




                                                   
               Minor Under Guardianship of real mother
               Ranjana w/o Murlidhar Waghmare,
               Age 45 years, Occupation: Household,
               R/o Shastri Nagar, Bhokar,
               Taluka Bhokar District: Nanded. 




                                           
                              ig                 ...APPELLANT
                                                 (Original Petitioner)
                       VERSUS
                            
      1.       Gajanan s/o Phulsingh Aade,
               Age 25 years, Occu: Agriculturist,
               R/o. Ambedkar Nagar, Barad,
               Taluka: Mudkhed, District Nanded.
      


      2.       Mr.Shivraj s/o Nagnath Shete,
   



               Age Major, Occupation: Business,
               R/o. At Rajavadi, Taluka : Mukhed,
               District: Nanded.

      3.       United India Insurance Company Ltd.,





               Through its Branch Manager,
               'Dayawan Complex" Station Road,
               Parbhani, Taluka & District:Parbhani.

                                                 ...RESPONDENTS





                                                 (Original Respondents)
                        ...
      Mr.Surendra V.Suryawanshi, Adv., for the 
      appelant.
      Mr.O.B.Boinwad, Adv., for respondent no.1.
      Mr.Mandar Deshmukh, Adv., h/f Mr. 
      S.G.Chapalgaonkar, Adv., for respondent no.3.
                        ...




    ::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2016                    ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:54:48 :::
                                                2                 FA NO.299 OF 2015


                                    CORAM: P.R.BORA, J.

Date: April 11th, 2016

...

ORAL JUDGMENT:

1. With the consent of the learned Counsel

appearing for the parties, heard finally at

admission stage.

2.

The present appeal raises the question:

" Whether there is any restriction that compensation could be awarded by the

Tribunal only upto the amount claimed by the

claimant or in an appropriate case, more than the amount claimed by the claimants can be granted by the Tribunal ?"

3. The present appeal arises out of the

judgment and award passed by the Member, Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal at Bhokar, district

Nanded, in MACP No.421/2010 decided on 16.9.2014.

The aforesaid claim petition was filed by the

appellant claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-.

The appellant was injured in a vehicular accident

3 FA NO.299 OF 2015

and suffered permanent disablement. In order to

substantiate the contentions raised by her in the

claim petition, the appellant adduced before the

Tribunal all necessary oral and documentary

evidence. On assessment of the evidence so

adduced by the appellant, the Tribunal found the

appellant entitled to the total compensation

amounting to Rs.10,66,226/-, however, since the

petitioner had restricted the claim to the

extent of Rs.8,00,000/-, held the petitioner

entitled to receive that much of compensation.

The question is whether the Tribunal was

right in not awarding the amount of compensation

to which, according to the Tribunal, the

appellant was entitled to, only for the reason

that, in the claim petition the appellant had

restricted the claim to the extent of

Rs.8,00,000/-.

4. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act,

1988, empowers the Court to award such

compensation as appears to be just, which has

been interpreted to mean `just in accordance with

4 FA NO.299 OF 2015

law' and it can be more than the amount claimed

by the claimant. The Honourable Apex Court in

the case of Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and

others ((2003) 2 SCC 274) has held that,

" Under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, there is no restriction that

compensation could be awarded only up to the amount claimed by the claimant. In an

appropriate case where from the evidence brought on record if Tribunal considers that

claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass such award. Only embargo is it should be 'Just'

compensation."

In view of the law laid down as above by the

Honourable Apex Court, the learned Tribunal ought

not have hesitated in awarding the amount more

than claimed by the appellant when, from the

evidence on record, it has reached to the

conclusion that the appellant was entitled for

the total compensation of Rs.10,66,226/- and that

it was the just and fair compensation payable to

the appellant.

5 FA NO.299 OF 2015

5. In view of the above, the appeal

deserves to be allowed and it is accordingly

allowed. The compensation amount of

Rs.8,00,000/- is enhanced to Rs.10,66,226/- and

the award is directed to be modified accordingly.

The deficit Court fee be recovered from the

appellant before preparing the modified award.

It is clarified that the only issue that was

raised in the present appeal was `whether the

compensation could be awarded only upto the

amount claimed by the claimant, or in an

appropriate case, the Tribunal can grant more

amount than claimed' and that has only been

answered in the present judgment.

(P.R.BORA) JUDGE

...

AGP/299-15fa