Telangana High Court
B.Odemma vs A.Dharmapuri 8 Others on 17 October, 2022
Bench: Shameem Akther, Nagesh Bheemapaka
*HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
C.M.A. No.43 OF 1998, C.M.A.(SR) No. 26299 of 2001
And
L.P.A. No. 249 of 2000
%Dated 05-06-2015
C.M.A. No. 43 of 1998
# Adam Indur Muttemma,
W/o. Adam Indur Mallesh,
R/o. Gupte Village,
Makloor Mandal,
Niamabad District and others.
... Appellants
VERSUS
$ Rathod Reddia,
Nizamabad and others.
... Respondents
!Counsel for Appellants : Mr. K.M. Mahender Reddy
^ Counsel for Respondent No.1 : None
Counsel for Respondent Nos.2&3 : Mrs. Nanda R. Rao
<GIST:
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred : 1) 2001(6) ALD 429 (DB)
2) 2002 (3) ALT 194 (DB)
3) (2003) 2 Supreme Court Cases 274
4) (2013) 9 Supreme Court Cases 54
5) (2014) 3 Supreme Court Cases 210
6) (2015) 4 Supreme Court Cases 237
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
C.M.A. No.43 OF 1998, C.M.A.(SR) No. 26299 of 2001
And
L.P.A. No. 249 of 2000
DATED:05.06.2015
C.M.A. No. 43 of 1998
Between:
Adam Indur Muttemma,
W/o. Adam Indur Mallesh,
R/o. Gupte Village,
Makloor Mandal,
Nizamabad District and others.
... Appellants
And
Rathod Reddia,
RTC driver,
R/o. Armoor,
Nizamabad and others.
....Respondents
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
C.M.A. No.43 OF 1998, C.M.A.(SR) No. 26299 of 2001
And
L.P.A. No. 249 of 2000
PC: (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale)
In view of divergence of opinions expressed by two Division Benches of
this Court, the following question was referred to the Larger Bench by the then
Hon'ble the Chief Justice:
"Whether the Tribunal/Court can award compensation under the
Motor Vehicles Act over and above the amount claimed by the
claimants, though subject to the payment of Court fee etc."
The first Division Bench in Pidigala Linga Reddy and others vs. Satla
Srinivas, took a view that the Court can grant compensation exceeding the
claim amount subject to payment of Court fee, if any, payable. Another Division
Bench of this Court in New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Chintnala,
took exactly the opposite view holding that the Tribunal/Court is not empowered
to award higher compensation than the compensation claimed by the claimants.
The order of reference was made on 28.6.2002.
Thereafter, the very same question fell for consideration of the Supreme
Court in Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh and Others and the question was
answered in the affirmative holding that in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, there
is no restriction that compensation could be awarded only upto the amount
claimed by the claimant. In appropriate case, wherefrom the evidence brought
on record, if the Tribunal/Court considers that the claimant is entitled to get
more compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass such award. The only
embargo is it should be just compensation, that is to say, it should be neither
arbitrary, fanciful nor unjustifiable from the evidence. Such observations were
made in the light of the provisions contained in Section 166(1) and (4); 158(6)
and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This view was thereafter reiterated by
the Supreme Court in Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh and Others;
Sanjay Verma vs. Haryana Roadways and Jitendra Khimshankar Trivedi
and Others vs. Kasam Daud Kumbhar and Others.
Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the
aforementioned judgments, the question referred to the Larger Bench must be
answered in the affirmative. Order accordingly. The law declared by the
Division Bench in Chintnala's case (supra-2), accordingly stands over ruled.
The reference is answered accordingly.
The registry is directed to place all the appeals before the Courts which
are assigned to hear these appeals and decide the same in the light of this
order.
____________________
DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ
_______________________
R. SUBHASH REDDY, J
___________
K.C. BHANU, J
_______________________
NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J
_______________
SANJAY KUMAR, J
Date: 5th June, 2015
Note: L.R. Copy to be marked. (Yes)
Pnb
