Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1232 (MAD)

E. Rayappan v. P. K. Jaleel

2015-03-03

PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA

body2015
Judgment 1. The claimant in a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tiruchirapalli is the revision petitioner herein. 2. The revision is filed challenging the order, dismissing the amendment application for enhancing the claim made in the M.C.O.P. The claimant was a Junior Engineer (Grade – I) with the Central workshops, Southern Railway, Golden Rock, Tiruchirapalli. On the fateful day where he met with an accident, he was grievously injured and his right leg was amputated. The injured on the date of accident was only 40 years. He had made a claim of Rs.20 lakhs originally in M.C.O.P.No.143 of 2010. Now, he has filed I.A.No.426 of 2013 for enhancement. When the matter was argued and posted for judgment, the application is filed for reopening the case for enhancing the compensation claim. 3. The case of the petitioner is that as his leg was amputated, he is not able to carry on his day-to-day work as before. Besides, after the claim petition was filed, there had been a recurring medical expenditure for which he is entitled. Therefore, the above petition was filed. 4. As the claimant had not filed the petition to enhance the compensation along with reopen petition, the Tribunal had dismissed the petition. Aggrieved, the above Civil Revision Petition is filed. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. There is no limitation for making a Motor Accident Claim. Future medical expenses also can be claimed by the victim. The instant case is one such examples. There is no restriction under the Motor Vehicles Act for the award of compensation amount. In an appropriate case, when evidence is filed, based on the same, the claim can be enhanced. The Motor Vehicles Act only contemplates of "just" compensation which means, the compensation awarded should neither be arbitrary nor unjustifiable from the evidence. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also places his reliance on Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh and Others, 2003 (2) SCC 274 , wherein in paragraph Nos. 16 and 21, it has been held as follows:- "16. From the aforesaid observations, it cannot be held that there is a bar for the Claims Tribunal to award the compensation in excess of what is claimed, particularly when the evidence which is brought on record is sufficient to pass such award. 16 and 21, it has been held as follows:- "16. From the aforesaid observations, it cannot be held that there is a bar for the Claims Tribunal to award the compensation in excess of what is claimed, particularly when the evidence which is brought on record is sufficient to pass such award. In cases where there is no evidence on record, the Court may permit such amendment and allow to raise additional issue and give an opportunity to the parties to produce relevant evidence. 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 amendment to the claim petition." 8. The Supreme Court also held that it is permissible under the Act to award compensation for future medical expenses. In view of the above decision, the claimant is entitled to compensation for the special damages which are suffered by him for the loss of limb and also for the general damages including for the pain and suffering, loss of amenities, earning capacity and future prospects including medical treatment. Any amendment is only subject to proof. The Tribunal can award compensation only based on the evidence that may be produced by the claimant. The Motor Vehicles Act also is liberal in waiving the Court fees payable initially as the very enactment is a social welfare legislation. So, in such circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have allowed the amendment. Therefore, the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III Additional Subordinate Judge), Tiruchirapalli needs interference. 9. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III Additional Subordinate Judge), Tiruchirapalli is set aside. So, in such circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have allowed the amendment. Therefore, the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III Additional Subordinate Judge), Tiruchirapalli needs interference. 9. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III Additional Subordinate Judge), Tiruchirapalli is set aside. The claimant is directed to file the enhancement petition within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.