Vannam Savithramma 4 Others vs Mohd. Khaja Shareef Hdfc Ergo ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4443 Tel

                            1                        MACMA.No.201 of 2016




     THE HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI

                  M.A.C.M.A.No. 201 OF 2016

ORDER:

This appeal is filed by the petitioners/appellants,

challenging the award passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal - Cum III Additional District Judge, (F.T.C.) at

Nalgonda (For Short, the Tribunal), in O.P.No.721 of 2010,

dated 25.07.2012.

2. The appeal is filed by the claimants/dependants of the

deceased Bikshamaiah who died in the Motor Vehicle accident

that occurred on 04.05.2010. At the time of accident, the

deceased was aged about 52 years and was allegedly earning

Rs.8,000/- per month by doing kirana business and was

contributing the same to his family members. The claimants

filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-.

The Tribunal after considering all the evidence observed that the

claimants were entitled to a compensation of Rs.3,47,000/-.

However, the compensation was restricted to the claim of

Rs.2,50,000/-. Thereafter, the claimants have filed this appeal

seeking enhancement of compensation to a sum of

Rs.4,00,000/- and also filed an amendment petition to amend

the prayer in the claim petition.

3. When the appeal came up for hearing along with

amendment petition, the learned Standing counsel for

respondents has objected to the same and submitted that under

Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, an appeal can be filed before

the Court only by an aggrieved party and where the claim of the

claimants has been accepted in toto, there can be no grievance

and hence no appeal can lie to the higher forum. In support

thereof, he placed reliance upon the following case law:

1. Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Yarava Lakshmi Devi1,

2. National Insurance Company Limited Vs. B.Rama Goud and others2,

3. K.Annaji Rao and another Vs. Md.Jaboar and another3.

Therefore, according to him, the appeal itself is not

maintainable. He also drew the attention of this Court to the

valuation made by the claimants for arriving at the value of

appeal and submitted that the claimants have taken it for

granted as to the value of appeal without the petition for

amendment being allowed by Court.

4. Learned counsel for the claimants, on the other hand,

placed reliance upon various case laws for the preposition that

the Tribunal even without there being an application by the

2009 (4) ALD 491

2004 (5) ALT 315

2003 (6) ALD 452

claimants, should be awarded with just and reasonable

compensation and therefore should have awarded the sum of

Rs.3,47,000/- as computed by it, instead of restricting it to

Rs.2,50,000/-. In support of his contention, he placed reliance

on the following case law:

1. Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh4,

2. Deekonda Suresh Vs. D.Dharmaraju5,

3. Un-reported Judgment in the case of B.Srinivasa Rao Vs.

APSRTC in MACMA Nos.316 of 2011, 2523 and 4099 of 2012,

dated 30.08.2019,

4. Latest Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

of Surekha and others vs. Santosh and others6,

5. Judgment of Ramla and Others Vs. National Insurance

Company Limited and others7.

5. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on

record, it is noticed that the dependants of the deceased had

claimed only a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- towards compensation on

his death in the accident. The Tribunal has restricted the award

to Rs.2,50,000/- though it arrived at the just compensation at

Rs.3,47,000/-. The Claimants did not take any steps to amend

the prayer in the original petition during the pendency of the

2003 (2) SCC 274

2007 (4) ALT 704

2020 ACJ 2156

2019 (2) SCC 192

appeal. It was only before the High Court and that too in recent

years that the dependants of the deceased filed this petition

seeking enhancement of the compensation.

6. The contention of the learned standing counsel is right to

the extent that a claimant cannot be said to be aggrieved if his

claim has been accepted in toto and therefore, he does not have

a right of appeal. That could be the case if the total amount

claimed by the claimants has to be accepted as just and

reasonable compensation to be allowed and has been allowed

accordingly. But in the case before this Court the Tribunal has

arrived at a higher figure as eligible compensation allowable to

the claimants, but restricted to the sum claimed by the

claimants. This issue has been dealt with by the High Court and

the Apex Court in various cases. The Courts have held that the

Tribunal should not adopt a hyper technical approach in

awarding a just and reasonable compensation, even it was not

claimed by the claimants in the claim petition.

7. The Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh (cited supra) was delivered in

the year 2003 itself, whereas the appeal before the Tribunal was

of the year 2010, i.e., subsequent thereto. Therefore it presumed

that the lower Court/Tribunal was aware of the said judgment

and without following the said judgment, has restricted the

compensation to the amount in the claim petition. The judgment

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is the law of the land and is

binding on all the Courts Sub-ordinate to it and they have to be

followed in its true letter and spirit. In view thereof, by holding

that the Tribunal is not prohibited from awarding a higher

compensation if it is just and reasonable, this Court directs the

enhancement of compensation to a sum of Rs.3,47,000/- as

observed by the Tribunal, subject to payment of Court fee on the

compensation amount over and above Rs.2,50,000/-.

8. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part. There shall be

no order as to costs.

9. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal,

shall stand closed.

____________________________ JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI Dated: 07.09.2022 bak

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI

M.A.C.M.A.No. 201 OF 2016

Dated: 07.09.2022 bak