Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1277 (AP)

Bandarupally Rambabu v. M. Venkateswar Rao

2006-10-17

G.ROHINI

body2006
JUDGMENT : G. ROHINI, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 8.2.99 in M.V.O.P. No. 929 of 1996 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (First Additional District Judge), Guntur. 2. The appellants are the claimants, who filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 90,000 for the death of one Suryavathi. The claimants are the son and daughter-in-law of the deceased. While the deceased was travelling in a jeep along with 12 others from Kanaparru village of Guntur District on 8.9.1996, a lorry bearing registration No. AP 16-U 918 owned by the respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No. 2 hit the jeep resulting in death of five inmates of the jeep including deceased Suryavathi. Several claim petitions were filed by the legal representatives of the deceased as well as the persons who received injuries in the said accident and having considered the evidence produced, a finding was recorded by the Tribunal that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. So far as the compensation claimed is concerned, the claimants examined two witnesses PWs 1 and 2 and produced Exh. A1 document to substantiate their claim. The deceased was admittedly aged about 40 years at the time of the accident and it was pleaded that she was earning Rs. 3,000 per month by carrying on milk business and she was also working as an agricultural labourer. The Tribunal below opined that the minimum income of the deceased after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses would be Rs. 10,000 and having applied the multiplier 13, held that the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 1,30,000. However, the compensation was restricted to Rs. 90,000 as claimed in the claim petition. The said order is under challenge in this appeal. 3. While relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh and Others, (2003) 2 SCC 274 , the learned Counsel submitted that there cannot be any restriction that the compensation should be awarded only up to the amount claimed by the claimants. The said order is under challenge in this appeal. 3. While relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh and Others, (2003) 2 SCC 274 , the learned Counsel submitted that there cannot be any restriction that the compensation should be awarded only up to the amount claimed by the claimants. In the above decision, it was held by the Supreme Court as under: (7) Firstly, under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the M.V. Act') 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 the Tribunal/court considers that the claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass such award. Only embargo is--it should be 'just' compensation, that is to say, it should be neither arbitrary, fanciful nor unjustifiable from the evidence. This would be clear by reference to the relevant provisions of the M.V. Act. Section 166 provides that an application for compensation arising out of an accident involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both, could be made (a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or (b) by the owner of the property; or (c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or (d) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be. Under the proviso to Sub-section (1), all legal representatives of the deceased who have not joined as the claimants are to be impleaded as respondents to the application for compensation. Other important part of the said section is Sub-section (4) which provides that 'the Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under Sub-Section (6) of Section 158 as an application for compensation under this Act'. Hence, Claims Tribunal in appropriate case can treat the report forwarded to it as an application for compensation even though no such claim is made or no specified amount is claimed. Hence, Claims Tribunal in appropriate case can treat the report forwarded to it as an application for compensation even though no such claim is made or no specified amount is claimed. The Supreme Court further held as under: (21) For the reasons discussed above, in our view, under the M.V. Act, there is no restriction that the Tribunal/court cannot award compensation amount exceeding the claimed amount. The function of the Tribunal/court is to award 'just' compensation which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record. Further, in such cases there is no question of claim becoming time-barred or it cannot be contended that by enhancing the claim there would be change of cause of action. It is also to be stated that as provided under Sub-section (4) to Section 166, even report submitted to the Claims Tribunal under Sub-section (6) of Section 158 can be treated as an application for compensation under the M.V. Act. If required, in appropriate cases, court may permit amendment to the claim petition. 4. In the light of the ratio laid down in the above decision, it is clear that the compensation awarded should be just and based on the evidence available depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. It is also clear that there is no restriction to award compensation exceeding the amount claimed by the claimants and that it is always open to the courts to permit amendment of the claim petition even at the appellate stage to enhance the claim amount. 5. As noted above, in the case on hand, on appreciation of the evidence produced by the claimants, the Tribunal found that even if the deceased was treated as a non-earning member and her income was taken as Rs. 15,000 per annum as per the Second Schedule, the claimants should be entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,30,000. 6. In the absence of any other evidence on behalf of the respondents contradicting the case of the claimants, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the said finding. If that be so, as held by the Apex Court in Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh and Others, (2003) 2 SCC 274 . I am of the opinion that the Tribunal below is not justified in confining the compensation to the claim of the claimants. 7. If that be so, as held by the Apex Court in Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh and Others, (2003) 2 SCC 274 . I am of the opinion that the Tribunal below is not justified in confining the compensation to the claim of the claimants. 7. It is relevant to note that in this appeal, a miscellaneous application being C.M.P. No. 15073 of 2004 has been filed on behalf of the appellants under Order V, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code, seeking amendment by enhancing the claim from Rs. 90,000 to Rs. 1,30,000 and the same was already ordered. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and amount of compensation is enhanced to Rs. 1,30,000. However, it is made clear that enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum as per the prevailing rate of interest in the bank deposits from the date of petition till realisation. No costs.