JUDGMENT : Heard the arguments of Ms. Ch.S.N.Meena Kumari, learned counsel representing Sri Kambhampati Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant, Sri Venkata Krishna Rao Kosuru, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Smt. A. Jayanthi, learned counsel for the respondent No.5/ United India Insurance Company Limited. 2. This appeal directed by the appellant/claimant challenging the Order and Decree dated 18.09.2007 passed in M.V.O.P.No.162 of 2004 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru (hereinafter referred to ‘Tribunal’). 3. Parties are referred to as they were arrayed in the proceedings before the learned Tribunal, for the sake of convenience. 4. The claimant filed petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity ‘the Act’) claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 03.01.2003. 5. The case of the claimant is that on 03.01.2003 the claimant and his relative viz., Mandapati Satyanarayana came to Nallajerla from Tadekalakonda with a view to go to Tadepalligudem; they boarded into an auto bearing registration No.AP37 V 2293; around 4.00 PM when the auto reached the outskirts of Tadepalligudem, one lorry bearing registration No. AAK 5945 driven by the 1st respondent came in high speed from Tadepalligudem side, dashed the auto; as a result, the claimant and his relative sustained grievous injuries; the claimant took treatment in Government Headquarters Hospital, Eluru as an inpatient and a surgery was conducted and implanted a steel rod to his right femur; the claimant spent a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards his treatment. 6. Respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 remained ex parte. 7. Respondent No.2/Oriental Insurance Company i.e., Insurer of the lorry bearing registration No.AAK 5945 filed counter contending that the driver of the auto bearing registration No.AP37 V 2293 i.e., respondent No.3 drove the auto in a rash and negligent manner; near Chintadepalli cross road one scooterist was going from Tadepalligudem side and on seeing the scooterist, the respondent No.3 perturbed and turned his auto to right side without observing the lorry and dashed the same and thereby, accident occurred; there was no rashness or negligence on the part of the respondent No.1 in driving the lorry. 8. 8. Respondent No.5/United India Insurance Company Limited i.e., insurer of the auto bearing registration No.AP37 V 2293 filed counter contending that the driver of the lorry is responsible for the accident, hence, the respondent No.5 is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant; there was no rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of the auto; the driver of the auto violated the terms and conditions of the policy and permit by running the auto as a stage carrier, hence, the respondent No.5 is not liable to pay any compensation. 9. The learned Tribunal, basing on the rival contentions, framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the accident occurred on 03.01.2003 at about 4.00 PM near Coaxial K.N.Road, Tadepalligudem, in which the petitioner sustained grievous injuries on account of rash and negligence of the driver of the auto bearing No.AP37 V 2293 as pleaded by the 2nd respondent Insurance Company? 2. Whether the said accident occurred on account of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AAK 5945 pleaded by the 5th respondent Insurance Company? 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation from all the respondents, and if so, for how much amount? 4. To what relief? 10. During enquiry, on behalf of claimant, two (02) witnesses were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2, respectively and six (06) documents were exhibited as Ex.A1 to Ex.A6. On behalf of the 2nd respondent/Oriental Insurance Company, two witnesses were examined as R.W.1 and R.W.2, respectively and exhibited Ex.B1 and Ex.X1 and Ex.X2 documents. On behalf of respondent No.5/United Insurance Company, none were examined, but got exhibited Ex.B2 document. 11. The learned Tribunal, basing on the evidence placed before it, on issue No.1 held that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle i.e., 1st respondent. This finding was not challenged by the respondent No.2/Insurance Company. 12. On quantum of compensation entitled by the claimants, the Tribunal, on issue Nos.1 and 2 held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the respondent No.1 and further held that the respondent No.3 i.e., driver of the auto is not responsible for the accident and awarded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards just compensation. 13. 13. Learned counsel for the claimant would submit that the Tribunal ought to have awarded what is just and reasonable towards compensation, since it is a benevolent act, but the learned Tribunal erroneously restricted the decree amount to Rs.2,00,000/- only though, on evidence it found that the claimant is entitled to Rs.2,71,744/- towards just compensation. 14. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2/Oriental Insurance Company would submit that the Tribunal has awarded what is just in the circumstances of the case and therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the order and decree of the learned Tribunal. 15. Considering the above rival contentions, the points that would arise for consideration in this appeal are as under: 1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, in M.V.O.P.No.162 of 2004 vide Order and Decree dated 18.09.2007 is a just compensation in the circumstances of the case and does it warrants interference of this Court? 2. To what relief? 16. POINT NO.1: It is an admitted fact that the application was filed under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation for the personal injuries sustained by the claimant in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 03.01.2003. Learned Tribunal, basing on the evidence found that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The learned Tribunal further assessed the amount of compensation basing on the evidence placed before it and arrived the same at Rs.2,71,744/-. However, the Tribunal restricted the award amount to Rs.2,00,000/- as per the claim of the claimant. 17. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mona Baghel and others vs. Sajjan Singh Yadav and others, (2019) 15 SCC 260 held that in the matter of compensation, the amount actually due and payable is to be awarded despite the claimant having sought for a lesser amount and the claim petition being valued at a lesser value. The law is well-settled that in the matter of compensation, the amount actually due and payable is to be awarded despite the claimant having sought for a lesser amount and the claim petition being valued at a lesser value. 18. In the light of above proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, what is just compensation be awarded though the claimant has filed the application for lesser amount. 18. In the light of above proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, what is just compensation be awarded though the claimant has filed the application for lesser amount. In the light of above factual and legal position in the appeal, the claim petition is liable to be allowed holding that the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,71,744/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization instead of Rs.2,00,000/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered. 19. POINT NO. 2: In the light of finding on point No.1, the appeal in M.A.C.M.A.No.3972 of 2012 is liable to be allowed. 20. IN THE RESULT, the Appeal in is Allowed by modifying the Order and Decree dated 18.09.2007 passed in M.V.O.P.No.162 of 2004 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru, holding that the appellant/ claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.2,71,744/- (Rupees two lakhs seventy one thousand seven hundred and forty four only) with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization instead of Rs.2,00,000/-, as awarded by the learned Tribunal. The appellant/claimant is directed to pay the deficit court fee before the learned Tribunal as per Rule 475 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of Judgment. There shall be no order as to costs. 21. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to deposit the compensation amount within eight (08) weeks from the date of the judgment and in the event of they already deposited some amount, the said amount has to be excluded, and the balance amount shall be deposited within above said period from the date of Judgment. 22. On such deposit, the appellant/claimant is permitted to withdraw the amount along with accrued interest thereon. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.