JUDGMENT : Dilip B. Bhosale, J. In view of divergence of opinions expressed by two Division Benches of this Court, the following question was referred to the Larger Bench by the then Hon'ble the Chief Justice: Whether the Tribunal/Court can award compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act over and above the amount claimed by the claimants, though subject to the payment of Court fee etc. 2. The first Division Bench in Pidigala Linga Reddy and others v. Satla Srinivas, (2001 (6) Andh LD 429 (DB) : 2002 AIHC 121 (AP)) took a view that the Court can grant compensation exceeding the claim amount subject to payment of Court fee, if any, payable. Another Division Bench of this Court in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Chintnala, (2002 (3) Andh LT 194 (DB) : AIR 2002 (NOC) 190 (AP)) took exactly the opposite view holding that the Tribunal/Court is not empowered to award higher compensation than the compensation claimed by the claimants. The order of reference was made on 28.6.2002. 3. Thereafter, the very same question fell for consideration of the Supreme Court in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh and others, (2003) 2 SCC 274 : AIR 2003 SC 674 ) and the question was answered in the affirmative holding that in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, there is no restriction that compensation could be awarded only upto the amount claimed by the claimant. In appropriate case, wherefrom 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. The only embargo is it should be just compensation, that is to say, it should be neither arbitrary fanciful nor unjustifiable from the evidence. Such observations were made in the light of the provisions contained in Sections 166(1) and (4); 158(6) and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This view was thereafter reiterated by the Supreme Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others, ( (2013) 9 SCC 54 ); Sanjay Verma v. Haryana Roadways, (2014) 3 SCC 210 : AIR 2014 SC 995 ) and Jitendra Khimshankar Trivedi and Others v. Kasam Daud Kumbhar and others, ( (2015) 4 SCC 237 : AIR 2015 SC (Civ) 867). 4. 4. Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned judgments, the question referred to the Larger Bench must be answered in the affirmative. Order accordingly. The law declared by the Division Bench in Chintnalas case, (AIR 2002 (NOC) 190 (AP)) (supra), accordingly stands overruled. 5. The reference is answered accordingly. 6. The registry is directed to place all the appeals before the Courts which are assigned to hear these appeals and decide the same in the light of this order. Order accordingly.