JUDGMENT : Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. This appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is at the instance of a claimant, the widow of the victim, and is directed against an award dated 10th November 2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Aux.), Fast Track Court No.4, Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar in MAC Petition No.534 of 2004 thereby disposing of an application under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act by awarding a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the application till realisation. 2. Being dissatisfied, the claimant has come up with this appeal for enhancement.; 3. The following facts are not in dispute :- On 11th April 2004, while the victim was coming back towards his home at Gokulnagar in Himmatnagar by driving his own Luna motorcycle bearing registration No.GJ-9-L-6430 he was hit from behind by a truck bearing registration No.GJ-9-Y-5866 driven by opponent No.1 as a result, the victim died. 4. According to the claimant, the victim was a carpenter having monthly income of Rs.4,000/- and was aged 34 years at the time of death and, thus, claimed a sum of Rs.5 lakh as compensation. 5. The Tribunal below, however, did not believe the assertion of the claimant that the victim used to earn Rs.4,000/- but by relying upon the acceptance of suggestion given by the Insurance Company that the victim had income of Rs.50/- a day, arrived at a figure of Rs.1500/- a month and on that basis applying multiplier of 17 arrived at a figure of Rs.1,53,000/- and added a further sum of Rs.22,000/- for loss of consortium, funeral expenses, loss of estate etc.. and thus, arrived at the figure of Rs.1,75,000/- 6. Mr Mansuri, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant strenuously contended before this Court that the Tribunal below committed substantial error in treating the income of the victim to be Rs.1500/- a month merely because the uneducated widow of the victim accepted the suggestion given to her in cross-examination by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that her husband used to earn Rs.50/- a day. Mr Mansuri contends that, as pointed out by the Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Devi v. Mohammad Tabbar reported in (2008) 12 SCC 165 even an unskilled labourer earns Rs.100/- a day. Mr Mansuri contends that, as pointed out by the Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Devi v. Mohammad Tabbar reported in (2008) 12 SCC 165 even an unskilled labourer earns Rs.100/- a day. In the said decision, the accident had taken place on 12th April 2004 and under such circumstances, the Supreme Court made the aforesaid observation. 7. In view of the above fact, I find substance in the contention of Mr Mansuri that there was no justification in treating the income of a carpenter to be Rs.1500/- in the year 2004 when the fact that the victim was a carpenter and he had his own Luna motorcycle is not in dispute. 8. The next grievance of Mr Mansuri was that the Tribunal did not take into consideration the future prospect of the victim and by relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 contends that 50% of the existing income should be added to the existing income and thereafter, appropriate multiplier should be applied. Thus, treating the income of the victim to be Rs.3000/- a month and after deducting one-third for the personal expenditure of the victim, the annual prospective income should be Rs.36,000/- and if we apply the multiplier of 16, will arrive at a figure of Rs.5,76,000/-. To the aforesaid amount, a further sum of Rs.25,000/- should be added and the amount will come to Rs.6 lakh if we make it a round figure. 9. I am quite conscious that the claimant claimed a sum of Rs.5 lakh before the Tribunal below. However, as pointed out by the Supreme Court in the case of Nagappa v. Gurudyal Singh reported in 2003 (2) SCC 274 and subsequently relied upon by the Supreme Court in the case of Ibrahim v. Raju reported in 2011 (10) SCC 634 , if it appears to a Court dealing with the application under a Motor Vehicles Act that the amount of just compensation arrived at on the basis of materials on record is more than the one claimed in the original application, it is the duty of the Court dealing with such application to award just compensation. The following observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Ibrahim v. Raju (supra) are quoted below :- 21. The following observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Ibrahim v. Raju (supra) are quoted below :- 21. We are conscious of the fact that in the petition filed by him, the appellant had claimed compensation of Rs.3 lakhs only with interest and costs. It will be reasonable to presume that due to financial incapacity the appellant and his family could not avail the services of a competent lawyer and make a claim for adequate compensation. However, as the Tribunal and the High Court and for that reason this Court are duty-bound to award just compensation, we deem it proper to enhance the compensation from Rs.1,89,440 to Rs.6 lakhs. This approach is in tune with the judgment in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh. In that case, the Court considered a similar issue, referred to the judgments of the Bombay High Court in Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay v. Kisan Gangaram Hire, Orissa High Court in Mulla Md. Abdul Wahid v. Abdul Rahim and Punjab and Haryana High Court in Devki Nandan Bangur v. State of Haryana and observed: (Nagappa case, (2003) 2 SCC 274 , p.282, para 21) 21. For the reasons discussed above, in our view, under the MV 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 the report submitted to the Claims Tribunal under sub-section (6) of Section 158 can be treated as an application for compensation under the MV Act. If required, in appropriate cases, the court may permit the amendment to the claim petition. 10. Similar view is also taken in the case of Sanjay Batham v. Munnalal Parihar and others reported in (2011) 10 SCC 665 where at paragraph 18, the Supreme Court has made the following observations:- "18. If required, in appropriate cases, the court may permit the amendment to the claim petition. 10. Similar view is also taken in the case of Sanjay Batham v. Munnalal Parihar and others reported in (2011) 10 SCC 665 where at paragraph 18, the Supreme Court has made the following observations:- "18. It is true that in the petition filed by him under Section 166 of the Act, the appellant had claimed compensation of Rs.4,20,000/- only, but as held in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh, 2003 (2) SCC 274 in the absence of any bar in the Act, the Tribunal and for that reason any competent court is entitled to award higher compensation to the victim of an accident." 11. It is, therefore, apparent that in course of a proceeding for compensation under Motor Vehicles Act even if at an appellate stage, an Appellate Court finds that the claimant is entitled to have more amount of compensation than the one claimed either in the claim application or in the Memorandum of Appeal against the award of compensation and if the Tribunal or Court comes to the conclusion that the just amount of compensation would be more than the amount restricted by the claimant, such fact will not stand in the way of the Court in awarding just amount of compensation. However, in such circumstances, the Court should pass direction for payment of additional amount of court fees. 12. I, therefore, set aside the award impugned and enhance the compensation to Rs.6 lakh although the claimant restricted her claim in the Tribunal to Rs.5 lakh and before this Appellate Court for a further amount of Rs.2 lakh over and above the amount of award. I further direct the claimant to pay additional amount of Court fees to extend the claim to a sum of Rs.6 lakh. Therefore, the appellant should pay further court fees on additional sum of Rs.2,25,000/- within fortnight from today. On such additional court fees being paid, the Insurance Company will deposit the balance amount with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim-application till the date of deposit. Such amount be paid within three months from today. 13. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. Appeal allowed.