Bombay High Court
Smt. Lalita Wd/O Manoj Matel And ... vs The Divisional Manager ... on 26 July, 2017
Bench: S.B. Shukre
J-fa71.17.odt 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL No.71 OF 2017
1. Smt. Lalita wd/o. Manoj Matel,
Aged 38 years,
Occupation : Household.
2. Ku. Roshani d/o. Manoj Matel,
Aged 18 years.
Occupation : Student,
Both R/o. Ward No.17,
Saoner, Distt. Nagpur. : APPELLANTS
...VERSUS...
The Divisional Manager,
M.S.R.T.C. Station Road,
Nagpur. : RESPONDENT
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Shri Asghar Hussain, Advocate for the Appellants.
Shri V.H. Kedar, Advocate for the Respondent.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM : S.B. SHUKRE, J.
th
DATE : 26
JULY, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard.
2. Admit. Heard finally by consent.
3. I have heard Shri Asghar Hussain, learned counsel for the
J-fa71.17.odt 2/4
appellants and Shri V.H. Kedar, learned counsel for the respondent.
4. I have gone through the records of the case including the
judgment and order.
5. The only point which arises in this appeal is :
Whether the Tribunal exercising its jurisdiction under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act can grant more
compensation than actually claimed in an application
filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act ?
6. In the instant case, the compensation that was found to be
payable by the respondent to the appellants was determined to be at
Rs.9,84,000/-. However, since the appellants, in their application under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, restricted their claim to
Rs.1,00,000/- only, compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- together with interest
at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the Post Mortem Report
till realization was granted by the Tribunal by the impugned judgment
and order dated 11th March, 2015. Such an approach adopted by the
Tribunal is contrary to the settled principles of law. The settled
principles tell us that what is required to be granted as compensation for
the loss arising from sufferance of the injuries or death, has to be just
and proper compensation and not only what has been actually claimed in
an application filed under Section 166 of the Act. It is held in the case of
Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh, reported in (2003) 2 SCC 274 that the
Tribunal is under a duty to grant just and fair compensation which could,
J-fa71.17.odt 3/4
in a given case be even more than what is actually claimed in an
application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. This
principle of law has been reiterated in several subsequent judgments of
the Hon'ble Apex Court, one of them being in the case of Sri Laxman @
Laxman vs. Divisional Manager, Oritl. Ins. Co. Ltd. And another,
reported in [2011] 0 Supreme (SC) 1054. In this case, the Hon'ble
Apex Court referred to the case of Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh and
observed in paragraph 24 thus :
"24. It is true that in the petition filed by him under
Section 166 of the Act, the appellant had claimed
compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- only, but as held in
Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh (2003) 2 SCC 274, in
the absence of any bar in the Act, the Tribunal and for
that reason any competent Court is entitled to award
higher compensation to the victim of an accident."
7. So, it is clear that the Tribunal has committed a serious error
of law in granting compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-, even though the
Tribunal opined that the appellants were entitled to receive
compensation of Rs.9,84,000/-.
8. In the result, this appeal deserves to be allowed and it is
allowed accordingly.
9. The point is answered as in the affirmative.
10. It is declared that the appellants are entitled to receive, as
compensation, an amount of Rs.9,84,000/-, it being just and fair together
with interest at the rate of Rs.7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of post
J-fa71.17.odt 4/4
mortem report till realization of the entire amount.
11. The appellants have already received an amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- and, therefore, the balance amount of compensation
determined under this order shall be paid by the respondent within one
month from the date of the order, failing which the appellants would be
entitled to recover the same through coercive method.
12. The impugned judgment and order are modified in the above
terms.
13. The parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
okMksns
