JUDGMENT Heard learned advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta appearing on behalf of appellant - insurance company. The appellant - insurance company has challenged award passed by MACT at Ahmedabad in MACP No.1056 of 2006 decided on 18th March 2009 Exh.61. The claims tribunal has awarded Rs.4,65,000/- with 9% interest in favour of respondent claimant. 2. Learned advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta has filed this appeal on behalf of appellant - insurance company having valued at Rs.1,44,000/- for purpose of court fees. He submitted that Rs.2,88,000/- awarded by claims tribunal under head of future loss of income as on higher side. The claims tribunal has erred in law in assessing disability of claimant as 80%. The claims tribunal failed to consider that when original applicant had given purshis Exh.46 agreeing to count his disability as 40%, even though, claims tribunal has considered 80% disability without any base. He also submitted that 40% disability was mutually agreed by both parties, then, all of sudden, without calling or giving opportunity to appellant - insurance company, it has been considered to 80% disability. The claimant has waived his right and passed purshis, even though, that purshis has been ignored by claims tribunal. He submitted that appellant - insurance company entitled to challenge 80% disability if it is disclosed to appellant, then, appellant can make their submission at relevant time before claims tribunal, so, it amounts to deny reasonable opportunity of hearing to appellant. He submitted that claims tribunal failed to appreciate that an agreement between party was required to be honoured so as to encourage speedy settlement of claims. If one party was allowed to withdraw from agreement other party would not have any incentive in settling claim. Not honouring an agreement between parties would have an adverse impact on speedy settlement of claims. The appellant insurance company has challenged only for Rs.1,44,000/- which would higher under head of future loss of income. Section 170 permission was granted by claims tribunal. Except that, no other submission is made by appellant - insurance company before this Court. 3. I have considered submissions made by learned advocate Mr. Mehta and I have also perused award passed by claims tribunal. The claimant has filed Section 166 application claiming Rs.5 lakhs with cost and interest against respondent. 4. On 1st November 2006, claimant was proceeding towards his house from his service place. 3. I have considered submissions made by learned advocate Mr. Mehta and I have also perused award passed by claims tribunal. The claimant has filed Section 166 application claiming Rs.5 lakhs with cost and interest against respondent. 4. On 1st November 2006, claimant was proceeding towards his house from his service place. At about 8 p.m., he was riding his bicycle on Prabodh Raval Bridge on 132 ft. Ring Road and he was to take turn on right side and was crossing the road, at relevant item, from Akhbarnagar side, opponent No.1 came by Bus No.GJ-1-XX-9796 at excessive speed, in rash and negligent manner, endangering human life and heavily dashed against claimant cyclist. As a result, claimant fell down and sustained severe injuries on his both legs. A complaint has been filed before Naranpura Police Station being I-CR No.648 of 2006. He was admitted in Civil Hospital and his right leg from knee was amputated. He also sustained severe fracture on left femur, therefore, he was operated upon. He was hospitalized from 1st November 2006 to 8th November 2006. He was operated upon four times on his same right legs. The blood bottles and glucose were given in heavy amount to him. The claimant was discharged on 8th November 2006. Since claimant's right leg found to be deteriorated, he changed hospital and admitted in hospital of Dr. Alpesh Patel from 8th November 2006 to 16th November 2006and again operation was performed. Thus, two times amputation of same leg came to be done. The claimant was discharged on 16th November 2006 from this hospital. The claimant was required to go for follow up treatment. The claimant was not able to do his routine work and now he is almost disabled person. The claimant was earning Rs.4,000/- per month. The claimant is not able to walk down and he is not able to do his daily pursuit. On that basis, claim of Rs.5 lakhs was made by claimant. 5. The opponents are duly served, however, opponents No.2 and 3 are absent. For opponent No.1, learned advocate Mr. J.M. Vasu has appeared, however, at the time of hearing, no one has remained present for opponent No.1. For opponent No.4, learned advocate Mr. M.J. Parikh has appeared and has filed reply Exh.44, inter alia, denying averments and statements made in petition and alleging sole negligence of claimant who was going on bicycle. For opponent No.1, learned advocate Mr. J.M. Vasu has appeared, however, at the time of hearing, no one has remained present for opponent No.1. For opponent No.4, learned advocate Mr. M.J. Parikh has appeared and has filed reply Exh.44, inter alia, denying averments and statements made in petition and alleging sole negligence of claimant who was going on bicycle. The insurance company has alleged contributory negligence on the part of claimant which may be counted. 6. The issues have been framed vide Exh.35. Thereafter, certain documents were produced on record as referred in Para 7 vide Exh.32, 33, 50 to 55 and 58. the claimant has filed affidavit by examination-in-chief vide Exh.36 who was cross-examined by learned advocate Mr. M.J. Parikh appearing on behalf of insurance company. The written arguments have been placed on record vide Exh.60 by claimant where calculation of quantum also mentioned. The claims tribunal has considered that there is no question at all of contributory negligence on the part of applicant, because, there was no speed of cycle can image generally and AMTS Bus is heavily dashed with claimant and as a result, claimant fell down. On behalf of respondent, driver of AMTS bus was not examined. But, looking to complaint, panchnama and considering that driver of offending vehicle was not examined, therefore, adverse inference has been drawn and on that basis, claims tribunal has come to conclusion that accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of offending vehicle AMTS Bus. 7. Thereafter, question of quantum has been examined. The claimant has filed purshis Exh.46 where he stated that 40% disability may be assessed as agreed by both parties. But, claims tribunal has considered that claimant has become almost crippled or disabled for his daily routine, then, Tribunal may consider that claimant has become 100% disabled because now, on account of amputations, he would not be able to serve for rest of his life. However, claims tribunal has considered submissions made by learned advocate on behalf of claimant relying upon certain decisions as referred in Para 10. 8. Learned advocate Mr. However, claims tribunal has considered submissions made by learned advocate on behalf of claimant relying upon certain decisions as referred in Para 10. 8. Learned advocate Mr. M.J. Parikh suggested Rs.2,000/- monthly income, age of 52 years, 15 multiplier may be granted and considering purshis Exh.46, 40% disability has been insisted by insurance company and opposed 100% permanent disability on the part of insurance company is not admitted and contributory negligence is also heavily pleaded by advocate of respondent - insurance company. 9. According to learned advocate Mr. M.J. Parikh who was appearing on behalf of insurance company has submitted that claimant's cross-examination is required to be read and he was cyclist and was going to take on right side which is admitted. Therefore, reasonable extent of contributory negligence on the part of claimant may be assessed. Thereafter, claims tribunal has considered question of negligence in Para 12, which is quoted as under : “12. having heard learned advocates and perusing the written arguments given by Mr. Patel, LA, for the applicant and perusing the judgments cited by the learned advocate for the applicant, one thing is clear that the applicant was a cyclist and since the driver of the offending vehicle was driving the big vehicle, as per settled law, it was the duty of the driver of the big vehicle to take care of the small vehicle while driving and the opponent No.1 has also not entered the witness-box, therefore, as per settled law, adverse inference requires to be drawn against the opponent driver. Though Mr. Parikh, LA, for opponent No.1 has raised contention regarding the contributory negligence, however, looking to the document on record, this Tribunal is not inclined to believe any contributory negligence on the part of the applicant, who was riding the cycle at the time of accident. In view of the above, the applicant has established the factum of the accident as well as rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle.” The claims tribunal has considered whether purshis Exh.46 filed by claimant suggesting 40% disability is to be considered or not ? That aspect has been considered in detail in Para 13 and 14, which are quoted as under : “13. That aspect has been considered in detail in Para 13 and 14, which are quoted as under : “13. It is settled law so far as motor accident claims are concerned that technical objections should not frustrate the cause of justice which is clear from the judgment reported in AIR 1996 SC 3181. It is held in the judgment reported in 1998 ACJ 821 (Raj.) that approach of the tribunal should be humanistic, liberal, non-technical and in equitable manner and no nicety, doubt or suspicion should weigh with the Tribunal. It is also very trite that the Tribunal has to consider “just” compensation to be awarded to the victims. The principle of just compensation is also reiterated in the judgment reported in AIR 2003 SC 674 in the case of Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh. In Para9, it is clearly held that “just” compensation would obviously mean that is fair, moderate and reasonable and awardable in the proved circumstances of a particular case and the expression “which appears to be just” vests a wide discretion in the Tribunal in the matter of determining of compensation. It is also held in the judgment reported in 1980 ACJ 435 (SC) in the case of N.K.V. Bros. Pvt. Ltd. v. M. Karumai Ammal that evidence should not be scrutinized in a manner as it is done in civil suit or criminal case and no nicety, doubt or suspicion should weigh with the Tribunal. 14. In the petition as well as in the deposition, the applicant has stated that he was earning approximately Rs.50,000=00 per year and since the applicant was earning approximately Rs.4,000=00 per month, as per settled law, for such reasonable or meager amount Tribunal cannot insist upon the documentary evidence. The applicant was a rickshaw driver and unfortunately, the period spent, which have been stated in the petition, in two hospitals and the applicant has suffered two amputations of the same leg and now he has become almost crippled or disabled. A question is whether this Tribunal is bound by the purshis given by the applicant that disability of 40% may be believed. It is to be noted that generally in the practice of MACT cases that for many times the doctor do not come in the Tribunal and in order to see that the doctor comes in the Tribunal, then he will charge from the applicant who calls the doctor. It is to be noted that generally in the practice of MACT cases that for many times the doctor do not come in the Tribunal and in order to see that the doctor comes in the Tribunal, then he will charge from the applicant who calls the doctor. Therefore, generally it also becomes onerous and difficult for the applicant to call the doctor because generally the learned advocate for the applicant calls the doctor and sees that the doctor is present before the Tribunal. However, as per settled law, technical objection should not frustrate the cause of justice, therefore, many times we do not insist the presence of the doctor, otherwise it would be very expensive for the applicant also and in order to see that the applicant may not have to pay money to the doctor for attending the Tribunal, generally the learned advocate for the applicant under the signature of the applicant gives pursis stating that the applicant gives pursis stating that the applicant has consented to reduce the disability as stated by the doctor in the original certificate so that the applicant may not be compelled to examined the doctor. Under these circumstances, many times, it is our experience to stick to what is stated in the pursis by both parties, however, in exceptional case this Tribunal is not bound by what is stated in the pursis. Though in the present case 40% disability is consented by the applicant, however, this Tribunal sees that the applicant being a small labourer has become permanent disabled and it is not possible for him to walk down or run for earning without the support of crutches. Looking to the injury certificate, descriptions of the doctors, period of hospitalization, x-ray and various medical bills, the applicant has suffered great pain, shock and suffering which can be compensated in terms of money. Therefore, though the applicant has given pursis Exh.46 stating to count 40% disability, however, it would be perhaps not unreasonable to consider 100% disability. This Tribunal has perused the judgment reported in 1992 ACJ 484 (Guj.) (Croam : A.N.D., J.), in which the Hon'ble High Court has believed almost 100% disability instead of doctor's disability which was given at low rate. It is held that the disability qua body cannot be accepted. It depends upon the use of disabled parts of body. This Tribunal has perused the judgment reported in 1992 ACJ 484 (Guj.) (Croam : A.N.D., J.), in which the Hon'ble High Court has believed almost 100% disability instead of doctor's disability which was given at low rate. It is held that the disability qua body cannot be accepted. It depends upon the use of disabled parts of body. Therefore, in the present case, this Tribunal may grant 100% disability, however, 80% is assessed. This Tribunal is assessing monthly income of Rs.3,000=00 of the applicant and has also kept in the mind judgments reported in 2000 ACJ 577 (SC) Gurmit Kaur vs. State of Hariyana, in which, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has assessed the monthly income of the taxi driver and 2006(2) GLR 1514 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. B.D. Chauhan, in which, the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat has assessed monthly income of Rs.3,000=00 of the taxi driver. Therefore, Rs.3,000=00 monthly income x 80% disability amounts to Rs.2,400=00 monthly loss. Hence, Rs.2,400=00 x 12 months amounts to Rs.28,800=00 yearly loss. Since the applicant was of 50 years at the time of the accident, under II Schedule of Sec.163-A of MV Act, fro a person between age group of 45-50, then, 13 multiplier can be granted, however, this Tribunal is granting 10 multiplier. Therefore, Rs.28,800=00 x 10 multiplier amounts to Rs.2,88,000=00 and the same is granted under the head of future economic loss. Looking to the judgment reported in 1995 ACJ 366 (SC) R.D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control Pvt. Ltd., this Tribunal is inclined to grant Rs.65,000=00 under the head of pain, shock and suffering because it is very difficult to image painful pursuits of the person who is compelled to amputate his deteriorated leg. For actual loss Rs.40,000=00 is granted. The applicant has produced various medical bills Exh.33 totaling Rs.61,700=00, therefore, Rs.62,000=00 is granted under the head of medical bills. For special diet, transportation and attendant charges Rs.10,000=00 is granted. Under all heads the applicant is entitled to recover the amount of Rs.4,65,000=00 (Rs. For actual loss Rs.40,000=00 is granted. The applicant has produced various medical bills Exh.33 totaling Rs.61,700=00, therefore, Rs.62,000=00 is granted under the head of medical bills. For special diet, transportation and attendant charges Rs.10,000=00 is granted. Under all heads the applicant is entitled to recover the amount of Rs.4,65,000=00 (Rs. Four Lakh Sixty Five Thousand Only) with costs and interest at the rate of 9% p.a., from the opponents jointly and severally from the date of petition till realisation within stipulated time...” The view taken by claims tribunal for not considering purshis filed by claimant, because, many times, Doctor do not come in Tribunal and in order to see that Doctor comes in Tribunal, then, he will charge from claimant who called the Doctor. Therefore, generally it also becomes onerous and difficult for claimant to call Doctor because generally claimant calls the Doctor and sees that doctor is present before Tribunal. However, as per settled law, technical objection should not frustrate cause of justice. The technicalities cannot hijack divine rhythm of justice. Therefore, many times, we do not insist presence of doctor, otherwise, it would be very expensive for claimant also and in order to see that claimant may not have to pay money to doctor for attending Tribunal, generally, claimant gives purshis stating that he has consented to reduce disability as stated by doctor in original certificate, so that, claimant may not be compelled to examine doctor. Under these circumstances, many times, it is our experience to stick to what is stated in purshis by both parties, however, in exceptional case, this Tribunal is not bound by what is stated in purshis. Therefore, in present case, 40% disability has been consented by claimant, however, Tribunal has considered that claimant being a small labourer has become permanent disabled and it is not possible for him to walk down or run for earning without support of crutches. Looking to injury certificate, descriptions of doctors, period of hospitalisation, x-ray and various medical bills, claimant has suffered great pain, shock and suffering, which can be compensated in terms of money. Looking to injury certificate, descriptions of doctors, period of hospitalisation, x-ray and various medical bills, claimant has suffered great pain, shock and suffering, which can be compensated in terms of money. Therefore, considering various decisions of this Court as well as Apex Court, claims tribunal has assessed 80% disability considering Rs.3,000/- monthly income, then, it comes to Rs.2,400/- monthly loss and 12 multiplier, which would come to Rs.28,800/- and looking to 50 years age, 13 multiplier can be granted, but, claims tribunal has granted 10 multiplier, then, it comes to Rs.2,88,000/- being a future economic loss. Thereafter, Rs.65,000/- has been granted for pain, shock and suffering, because, it is very difficult to image painful pursuits of person who is compelled to amputate his deteriorated leg upon which more than four operations were carried out. For actual loss Rs.40,000/- has been granted and considering various medical bills Exh.33, Rs.62,000/- has been granted. Rs.10,000/-has been granted for transportation, special diet and attendant charges. In all, it comes to Rs.4,65,000/-. 12. It is necessary to appreciate real injury received by claimant. At the relevant time when accident occurred, he was in service, but, after injury, he become totally jobless. Accident occurred on 1st November 2006. The certificate issued by Dr. Aditya I. Upadhyay on 15th July 2007 which gives details of injury received by claimant, which is quoted as under : “Injuries : Open Grade-III(3). Fracture of Rt.tibia and fibula for which operation External Fixater was done for Rt.tibia. Late on B/k amputation was done, at Civil Hosp. Ahmedabad. “?Fracture of Lt. Sub-brochentric-region for which operation Ender's-nailing was done. “?Late on due to infrection over Lt. Lower-limb,above-knee-amputation was done. “?Physiotherapy was given for one month. Complaints at present : 1. Disiqurement over Rt.thigh due to bad-looking scars. 2. Pain and weakness over both thighs. 3. Restriction of Lt. hip joint-movement. 4. Difficulty in performing daily routine activities. 5. Phantom-sensation. 6. Tingling and numbness over Rt. Thigh-stump. On Examination : Complaints are examined which are found true. Length of Rt.thigh 16 inches (40 cms). Length of Lt.thigh 19 (inches) (50 cms). I have referred Trisha Hospital's case papers. X-Ray is taken by me today shows union of fracture of Lt. Femur with nails inside and X-Ray of Rt.thigh shows amputation. Disability : (A) Mobility (B) Stability (A)(a) Movement at Lt.hip : Lt. Rt. Length of Rt.thigh 16 inches (40 cms). Length of Lt.thigh 19 (inches) (50 cms). I have referred Trisha Hospital's case papers. X-Ray is taken by me today shows union of fracture of Lt. Femur with nails inside and X-Ray of Rt.thigh shows amputation. Disability : (A) Mobility (B) Stability (A)(a) Movement at Lt.hip : Lt. Rt. Flexion 110 130 Extension 15 20 Abduction 35 45 Abduction 10 15 External rotation 40 45 Internal rotation 35 45 Loss of 20 % of movement : 20 x .33 = 6.60 (b) Muscular strength : Muscle power at Lt.thigh is Grade-IV. At Rt.thigh is Grade-V. Loss of 20% :- 20 x .33 = 6.6%. (c) Coordination : Weakness over Lt.thigh. Difficulty in performing daily routine activities which gives 10% disability. (B) Stability and weight bearing capacity is reduced which gives 15% disability. Calculations:(A)(a+b)=6.6+6.6(100-6.6) = 12% a+b+c = 12 + 10(100-12) = 21% ---------- 100 A + B = 21 = 15(100-21) = 35% 100 - ?Disability of the upper limb due to fracture of Lt.nech femur is 35% (According to Dr. Kessler (Page No.49,110,111,112) - ?According to Dr. Kessler (Page No.114) - Mr. Bhikabhai Manilal Patel is having 65% permanent disability of lower limb. due to Rt.thigh amputation.” 13. In view of aforesaid injury received by claimant which suggested that claimant becomes totally unfit for any kind of work. The result is that claimant is not able to earn any amount looking to physical disability as certified by doctor. The certificate of Dr. Upadhyay was produced on record. But, doctor was not examined. Therefore, it remained as it is. The question is that while considering case of physical disability, claims tribunal also has to consider loss of earning capacity due to physical disability. Both are different and distinct and claimant is entitled compensation on both counts. The claimant is entitled compensation due to receiving injury being a physical disability as certified by Dr. Upadhyay 65% and loss of earning capacity comes to 80% as considered by claims tribunal. The Madurai Division Bench of Madras High Court in case of Oriental Insurance Compnay Lmited, rep. by its Branch Manager, Pondicherry Union, Pondicheri v. K. Balasubramanian and Others reported in (2007) 6 MLJ 585 . Upadhyay 65% and loss of earning capacity comes to 80% as considered by claims tribunal. The Madurai Division Bench of Madras High Court in case of Oriental Insurance Compnay Lmited, rep. by its Branch Manager, Pondicherry Union, Pondicheri v. K. Balasubramanian and Others reported in (2007) 6 MLJ 585 . The relevant is quoted as under : “RATIONES DECIDENDI” I. “When an accused pleads guilty and is convicted based on his admission, the judgment of the Criminal Court becomes admissible and relevant in proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, not because it is a judgment of the Criminal Court but as a document containing an admission.” II. “Normally, for a person aged about 26, the maximum multiplier 18' can be adopted in fatal cases and when it is a case of total permanent disability, selecting 15' as multiplier shall be reasonable.” III. “In case loss of earning capacity is separately assessed without awarding lump-sum amount for permanent disability as such, there is no prohibition for separately assessing compensation for loss of amenities in life caused by the permanent disability.” 14. The Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shanbhunath Yadav and Others reported in 2008 ACJ 2599 has considered a case of total disablement when driver is suffered amputation below knee is considered to be 100% loss of earning capacity as injured cannot drive any vehicle relying upon decision in case of Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Shrinivas Sabata reported in 1976 ACJ 141 (SC). The total disablement means such disablement whether of a temporary or a permanent nature as incapacities of workman for all work which he was capable of performing at the time of accident resulting in such disablement. Looking to injury as certified by Dr. Upadhyay, a claimant is not in a physical position after receiving total disablement in a permanent nature as incapacities to claimant for all work which he was capable of performing at the time of accident resulting in such disablement. 15. The Apex Court in case of K.Janardan v. United India Insurance Co. Looking to injury as certified by Dr. Upadhyay, a claimant is not in a physical position after receiving total disablement in a permanent nature as incapacities to claimant for all work which he was capable of performing at the time of accident resulting in such disablement. 15. The Apex Court in case of K.Janardan v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. And Another reported in AIR 2008 SC 2384 has also considered; Total disablement Tanker driver met with accident with tractor - Suffered serious injuries and also amputation of right leg upto knee joint - Can be said to have suffered 100% disability and incapacity - Would also be disqualified from even getting driving licence - Computation of compensation on basis of loss of 100% of his earning capacity - Would be proper. 16. The Apex Court in case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ram Prasad Varma and Ors. reported in 2009 (1) Scale 598 , wherein Apex Court has held as under : “A claimant who had suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident resulting in amputation of both legs is entitled to 100% compensation in terms of the First Schedule appended to the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The amount of compensation which represents the loss of income can be calculated either in terms of the structured formula as contained in the Second Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act or on the basis of the other materials brought on record. It is not in dispute that in a case of this nature, the Tribunal cannot be said to have committed any illegality in applying the structured formula.” 17. Learned advocate Mr. Mehta vehemently submitted that inspite of Exh.46 purshis suggesting 40% disability is to be calculated by claimant not accepted by claims tribunal and insurance company was not given any opportunity is cannot be accepted because while perusing award, a submission was made by learned advocate Mr. M.J. Parikh who was appearing on behalf of insurance company that 80% cannot be considered physical disability contrary to purshis submitted by claimant. So, opportunity was given and availed by insurance company. The question is whether claims tribunal inspite of having purshis can ignore it in the interest of justice because of certain reasons which have been explained by claims tribunal in its award. It is very difficult for claimant to examine doctor for proving disability certificate before claims tribunal. So, opportunity was given and availed by insurance company. The question is whether claims tribunal inspite of having purshis can ignore it in the interest of justice because of certain reasons which have been explained by claims tribunal in its award. It is very difficult for claimant to examine doctor for proving disability certificate before claims tribunal. It also bears heavy legal expenses for examining doctor in claims tribunal. So, sometime, claimants due to his incapability of legal expenses for examining doctor surrender while reducing certain percentage of disability contrary to certificate considered to be a compelling circumstances for claimant which can be ignored by claims tribunal keeping in mind hard reality and inability of claimant to bear legal expenses for examining doctor. Apart from that even claims tribunal is not duty bound to consider only claim made by claimant before claims tribunal. It is a duty of claims tribunal to award just and reasonable compensation in favour of claimant while considering object of MV Act r/w. Section 168 of MV Act. 18. The Hon'ble Apex Court has recently considered this aspect in case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mohd. Nasir & Anr. reported in 2009 AIR SCW 3717. The relevant Para 27 is quoted as under : “27. The function of Commissioner is to determine the amount of compensation as laid down under the Act. Even if no amount is claimed, the Commissioner must determine the amount which is found payable to the workman. Even in the cases arising out of the 1988 Act, it is the duty of the Tribunal to arrive at a just compensation having regard to the provisions contained in Section 168 thereof. In Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh & Ors. [ (2003) 2 SCC 274 ], it is held: "20. Similarly, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Devki Nandan Bangur and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. [1995 ACJ 1288] observed that the grant of just and fair compensation is statutory responsibility of the Court and if, on the facts, the Court finds that the claimant is entitled to higher compensation, the Court should allow the claimant to amend his prayer and allow proper compensation. 21. For the reasons discussed above, in our view, under the M.V. Act, there is no restriction that Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation amount exceeding the claimed amount. 21. For the reasons discussed above, in our view, under the M.V. Act, there is no restriction that 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." In Syed Basheer Ahmed & Ors. v. Mohd. Jameel & Anr. [ (2009) 2 SCC 225 ], this Court held : "9. Section 168 of the Act enjoins the Tribunal to make an award determining "the amount of compensation which appears to be just." However, the objective factors, which may constitute the basis of compensation appearing as just, have not been indicated in the Act. Thus, the expression "which appears to the just" vests a wide discretion in the Tribunal in the matter of determination of compensation. Nevertheless, the wide amplitude of such power does not empower the Tribunal to determine the compensation arbitrarily, or to ignore settled principles relating to determination of compensation." In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi Narain Dhut [ (2007) 3 SCC 700 ], this Court held : "24. In the background of the statutory provisions, one thing is crystal clear i.e. the statute is beneficial one qua the third party. But that benefit cannot be extended to the owner of the offending vehicle. The logic of fake licence has to be considered differently in respect of the third party and in respect of own damage claims." In Punjab State Electricity Board Ltd. v. Zora Singh and Others [ (2005) 6 SCC 776 ], this Court held: "22. The administrative circulars as thence existed as also the regulations indisputably require supply of electrical energy to the agriculturists within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the amount asked for in terms of the demand notice. The administrative circulars as thence existed as also the regulations indisputably require supply of electrical energy to the agriculturists within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the amount asked for in terms of the demand notice. It may be true that the note appended thereto provides that the period specified therein shall be subject to availability of requisite material but the same does not absolve the appellant from performing its statutory duties. 23. In A.P. SRTC v. STAT a Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court has noticed thus: (An LT p.544, para 31) "31[24]. The meaning of `note' as per P. Ramanatha Aiyar's Law Lexicon, 1997 Edn. is `a brief statement of particulars of some fact', a passage or explanation." 24. The note, therefore, was merely explanatory in nature and thereby the rigour of the main provision was not diluted." {[See also State of Haryana & Ors. v. Shakuntla Devi [2008 (13) SCALE 621]}.? In view of aforesaid recent decision of Apex Court, claims tribunal can award more amount then claim while keeping in mind object of Section 168 of MV Act. The legal obligation upon claims tribunal while deciding claims tribunal to see that a reasonable and just compensation must have to be awarded to claimant irrespective of fact claimed by claimant. Therefore, according to my opinion, claims tribunal has rightly ignored Exh.46 purshis filed by claimant and rightly considered certificate given by doctor Upadhyay and looking to serious injuries and one leg is amputated and claimant is completely becomes useless for any kind of work and also considering total disablement as claimant was not able to perform same kind of work after accident which was performing prior to accident. So, incapacity of any amount of earning capacity itself is sufficient to consider 80% disability is a right conclusion based on record. For that, claims tribunal has jurisdiction to decide it and for that, according to my opinion, claims tribunal has not committed any error which requires interference by this Court. 20. If this matter is considered to be on a different angle that whatever amount of compensation has been awarded by claims tribunal if that amount is invested in Nationalised Bank then whatever interest amount is received that must be almost salary of claimant who received injury. 20. If this matter is considered to be on a different angle that whatever amount of compensation has been awarded by claims tribunal if that amount is invested in Nationalised Bank then whatever interest amount is received that must be almost salary of claimant who received injury. Looking to amount of compensation awarded by claims tribunal Rs.4,65,000/- if it is invested in a Nationlised Bank, then, at least claimant can get round about Rs.3,500/'- or some amount by way of interest and from that amount, claimant can survive and maintain his family. So, looking to that angle also, amount of compensation which has been awarded by claims tribunal in favour of claimant cannot consider to be unreasonable. 21. Therefore, contentions raised by learned advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta that it adversely affects settlement, but, if settlement is not reasonable, then, claims tribunal certainly has jurisdiction to award reasonable compensation to claimant irrespective of agreement and settlement arrived at between parties. Therefore, contentions raised by learned advocate Mr. Mehta cannot be accepted. Hence, same are rejected. The claims tribunal has perfectly justified in awarding compensation being a reasonable just and proper looking to injury received by claimant which he now, becomes incapacity to earning any amount for doing same kind of work which was performed by him prior to accident. Therefore, claims tribunal has not committed any error which requires interference by this Court. 22. There is not substance in first appeal. Therefore, present first appeal is dismissed. 23. When appeals is dismissed by this Court today, no order is required to be passed in civil application. Hence, civil application is disposed of. 24. The amount, if any, deposited by appellant before registry of this court, be transmitted to claims tribunal concerned forthwith.