K Samrajyam Sambamma, Hyderabad ... vs Bright Transport Co Ltd., Thane ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 890 Tel

     THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

               M.A.C.M.A. No. 1162 of 2015

JUDGMENT:

Being not satisfied with the quantum of

compensation awarded in the order and decree, dated

30.07.2014 made in O.P.No.2681 of 2011 on the file of the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional Chief

Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad (for short "the

Tribunal"), the appellants/claimants preferred the present

appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties

are referred to as per their array before the tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants filed a

petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act

claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of

one K.Naga Raju (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased")

in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 05.11.2011.

According to the claimants, on the fateful day, the

deceased, along with his friend, was proceeding on a

motorcycle from Shapur to Dundigal. When they reached

MGP, J Macma_1162_2015

near Anjaneyaswamy Temple, near Matrix company, IDA,

the offending vehicle i.e., Tanker bearing No.MH 04 DS

8656, owned by respondent No.1 and insured with

respondent No.2, being driven by its driver in a rash and

negligent manner, in the process of overtaking a DCM Van,

dashed the motorcycle. As a result, the deceased, who was

pillion rider, received multiple injuries and died on the

spot. It is stated that at the time of accident, the deceased

was 21 years, studying 2nd year Engineering course and

was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by giving tuitions.

Due to sudden demise of the deceased, the claimants lost

their source of income, love and affection and therefore,

they filed the claim-petition seeking compensation of

Rs.10.00 lakhs under various heads.

4. Before the Tribunal, while the respondent No. 1,

owner of the offending vehicle, stood ex parte, the

respondent No. 2 contested the claim denying the

averments of the claim petition, including the age,

avocation and income of the deceased and contended that

MGP, J Macma_1162_2015

the amount claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the

claim petition.

5. After considering the claim, counter filed by

respondent No.2 and the evidence, both oral and

documentary brought on record, the Tribunal had arrived

the total compensation at Rs.13,60,000/- but restricted

the compensation amount to Rs.10,00,000/- on the ground

that the claimants claimed only Rs.10,00,000/-.

Challenging the same, the present appeal came to be filed

by the claimants seeking enhancement.

6. Heard both sides and perused the record.

7. The learned Counsel for the appellants-claimants has

contended that the Tribunal having arrived at that the

claimants are entitled to the total compensation of

Rs.13,60,000/- ought not to have restricted the same to

Rs.10,00,000/- merely because the claim made in the O.P.

was Rs.10,00,000/-. He further submits that even though

the claimants sought meager amount, it is the duty of the

MGP, J Macma_1162_2015

Tribunal to grant just compensation over and above the

claimed amount, if they are entitled to and in the light of

the judgment of the Apex Court in Nagappa v. Gurudayal

Singh1 the claimants are entitled to more compensation

and prayed to enhance the same. It is further contended

that the claimants are also entitled to future prospects as

per the law laid down by the Apex Court in National

Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and

others2.

8. The contention of the learned Standing Counsel

appearing for respondent No.2-Insurance Company is that

as the Tribunal granted the entire compensation amount

as sought for by the appellants-claimants, they cannot be

said to be the aggrieved persons within the meaning of

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act and hence, they

cannot challenge the order of the Tribunal in the present

appeal and prayed to dismiss the appeal. It is further

(2003) 2 SCC 274

2017 ACJ 2700

MGP, J Macma_1162_2015

contended that the deceased was only an engineering 2nd

year student and taking into consideration of his future

career, the Tribunal has taken the monthly income at

Rs.15,000/- per month and in such circumstances, the

question of granting future prospects does not arise.

9. There is no dispute with regard to the manner of the

accident and the rash and negligent driving of the

offending Lorry by its driver in causing the accident.

10. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is

concerned, it is clear from the material available on record

that the Tribunal has taken into consideration the oral and

documentary evidence adduced by the parties, and

following the procedure enunciated in law, arrived at the

compensation entitled to by the claimants. However, as the

claimants sought compensation, which is obviously lower

in quantum than the calculated compensation, the

Tribunal had awarded the compensation sought by the

claimants, giving rise to the present appeal whereunder the

MGP, J Macma_1162_2015

action of the Tribunal in restricting the compensation to

the amount claimed, though they apparently are eligible to

higher quantum of compensation, is challenged before this

Court.

11. Under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,

there is no restriction that compensation could be awarded

only upto the amount claimed by the claimants. In an

appropriate case, where from the evidence brought on

record, if Tribunal/Court considers that claimants are

entitled to get more compensation than the one claimed,

the Tribunal may pass such award. Thus, the approach of

the learned Tribunal in determining compensation only on

the basis of amount of compensation claimed in the claim-

petition and not appreciating the evidence led by the

claimants is incorrect. Further, as per the decision of the

Apex Court in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh and others

(supra), there is no restriction for the Tribunal/Court in

awarding compensation amount exceeding the claimed

MGP, J Macma_1162_2015

amount. Further, in appropriate cases, the Court may

permit amendment to the claim-petition.

12. In Ramla and others v. National Insurance

Company Limited and others3 the Apex Court held that

there is no restriction in awarding compensation amount

exceeding the claimed amount, since, the function of the

Tribunal or Court under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles

Act, 1988 is to award 'just compensation'. The Motor

Vehicles Act is the beneficial and welfare legislation. A

'just compensation' is one which is reasonable on the basis

of the evidence produced on record.

13. Moreover, in the instant case, the claimants filed

I.A.No.2 of 2015 seeking permission to amend the claim

amount to Rs.14,38,000/-, which was already allowed by

this Court vide order, dated 29.07.2022.

14. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the

case and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court

(2019) 2 SCC 192

MGP, J Macma_1162_2015

referred to above, this Court is of the opinion that the

claimants are entitled to the compensation of

Rs.13,50,000/- under the head of loss of dependency

arrived at by the Tribunal. As rightly contended by the

learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance company the

claimants are not entitled to future prospects inasmuch as

the Tribunal taking into consideration the future career of

the deceased student, fixed the monthly income at

Rs.15,000/- per month. Insofar as the amount awarded

under conventional heads is concerned, as per the

principles laid down by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi

(supra) the claimants are entitled to Rs.33,000/- towards

loss of estate and funeral expenses as against Rs.10,000/-

as awarded by the Tribunal. Further, considering the fact

that the claimants are the parents of the deceased, this

Court is inclined to award a sum of Rs.40,000/- each to

the claimants under the head of filial consortium as per the

decision of the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance

Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and

MGP, J Macma_1162_2015

others4. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled to only

Rs.14,63,000/-.

15. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part. The

compensation awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced

from Rs.10,00,000/- to Rs.14,63,000/-, together with

interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the

date of realisation, payable by the respondents 1 and 2

jointly and severally. The said amount shall be

apportioned in the manner as ordered by the Tribunal.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

closed.

______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI .02.2023 Tsr

(2018) 18 SCC 130

MGP, J Macma_1162_2015

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

M.A.C.M.A. No. 1162 of 2015

.02.2023

Tsr