Chilla Rajeshwar Reddy Vs Narasaiah and Another

Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased toto allow the appeal and set aside the order and decree in so far as the same are against to the Appellant made in MVOP.No. 27/2007 dated 14.07.2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Principal District Court, KAdapa

¶15

2

¶16

AHHS, J MACMA No.2395 of 2012

¶17

IA NO: 1 OF 2009(MACMAMP 3801 OF 2009

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 189 days in filing the above appeal

¶19

IA NO: 2 OF 2009(MACMAMP 3802 OF 2009

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant permission to amend the compensation amount from Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 1,45,000/-

¶21

IA NO: 5 OF 2009(MACMAMP 23431 OF 2009

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased

¶23

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶24

1.J SESHAGIRI RAO

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

1.N RAMA KRISHNA

¶27

2..

¶28

The Court made the following:

¶29

3

¶30

AHHS, J MACMA No.2395 of 2012

¶31

JUDGMENT:

¶32

The claimant in M.V.O.P.No.27 of 2007 on the file of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – Principal District Judge, Kadapa, has filed the present appeal challenging the order and decree dated 14.07.2008 passed therein.

¶33

For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as and how they are arrayed before the learned MACT.

¶34

Heard learned counsel for the claimant and learned counsel

¶35

for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company.

¶36

This is a claimant’s appeal, issues relating to liability, negligence, etc., are not in dispute. There is no appeal nor cross objections filed by the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company.

¶37

The claimant is an injured victim in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 01.10.2005, attributed to the negligence of the driver of the tractor and trailer bearing registration Nos. AP 21 A 8716 and 8717 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle).

¶38

Contending that he sustained multiple injuries and is entitled

¶39

for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-, the claimant approached the

¶40

4

¶41

AHHS, J MACMA No.2395 of 2012

¶42

learned Tribunal. However, the learned Tribunal determined the

¶43

claimant's entitlement at Rs.1,45,000/- under the following heads:

¶44

Compensation sufferance (at grievous injury simple injury)	towards pain and Rs.18,000/- towards and Rs.2,000/- towards	Rs.20,000/-
Compensation disability	towards permanent	Rs.1,17,000/-
Compensation expenses	towards medical	Rs.5,000/-
Compensation nourishment	towards extra	Rs.2,000/-
Compensation to	wards transport charges	Rs.1,000/-
	In total	Rs.1,45,000/-

¶45

Referring to the evidence and considering the disability at 30%, the learned Tribunal adopted notional income at Rs.30,000/per annum and applied multiplier of 13.

¶46

The learned MACT held that the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,45,000/-. However, it restricted the award to Rs.1,00,000/- on the ground that the claimant had sought only Rs.1,00,000/- in the claim petition.

¶47

Arguments in the appeal:

¶48

For the Claimant :

¶49

5

¶50

AHHS, J MACMA No.2395 of 2012

¶51

Learned counsel for the claimant submits that the claim made

¶52

by the claimant was due to improper receipt of advice, which cannot be the basis to restrict the claim, if the claimant is entitled for more compensation than what he has claimed. The criteria should be awarding just and reasonable compensation.

¶53

For the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company:

¶54

The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/Insurance

¶55

Company submits that the compensation already awarded is fair and reasonable, and that the matter has been decided in accordance with law and on its merits by the learned MACT. There are no grounds to interfere.

¶56

The points that arise for consideration in this appeal are:

¶57

1. Whether the awarding of compensation can be restricted to the amount claimed, when the claimant is otherwise entitled for a higher amount?

¶58

1. What is the result of the appeal?

¶59

6

¶60

AHHS, J MACMA No.2395 of 2012

¶61

Point No.1:

¶62

Precedential Guidance :

¶63

Granting of more compensation than what claimed, if the

¶64

claimant is otherwise entitled:

¶65

The legal position with regard to awarding more compensation than what claimed has been considered and settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court holding that there is no bar for awarding more compensation than what is claimed. For the said preposition of law, this Court finds it proper to refer the following observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court made in:

¶66

(1) Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and Others¹ , at para 21 of the

¶67

judgment, that –

¶68

“.. 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 .”

¶69

(2) Kajal Vs. Jagadish Chand and Ors .² at para 33 of the

¶70

judgment, as follows:-

¶71

“33 . We are aware that the amount awarded by us is more than the amount claimed. However, it is well

¶72

1 (2003) 2 SCC 274

¶73

2 2020 (04) SCC 413

¶74

7

¶75

AHHS, J MACMA No.2395 of 2012

¶76

settled law that in the motor accident claim petitions, the Court must award the just compensation and, in case, the just compensation is more than the amount claimed, that must be awarded especially where the claimant is a minor .”

¶77

(3) Ramla and Others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited

¶78

and Others³ at para 5 of the judgment, as follows:-

¶79

“5 . Though the claimants had claimed a total compensation of Rs 25,00,000 in their claim petition filed before the Tribunal, we feel that the compensation which the claimants are entitled to is higher than the same as mentioned supra. There is no restriction that the Court cannot award compensation exceeding the claimed amount, since the function of the Tribunal or Court under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is to award “just compensation”. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation. A “just compensation” is one which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record. It cannot be said to have become time-barred. Further, there is no need for a new cause of action to claim an enhanced amount. The courts are duty-bound to award just compensation.”

¶80

In the present case, the disability pleaded is 30% and the

¶81

evidence of the doctor who treated the claimant has been placed on record by the claimant. The learned MACT, after referring to the 3 (2019) 2 SCC 192

¶82

8

¶83

AHHS, J MACMA No.2395 of 2012

¶84

evidence, found that the claimant is entitled for Rs.1,45,000/-. The only basis for restricting the award to Rs.1,00,000/- is that the claimant has claimed only Rs.1,00,000/-, which, according to settled law, is not acceptable.

¶85

Further, learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the claim in this appeal is only for the actual entitlement as arrived at by the learned MACT. Therefore, awarding the balance amount of Rs.45,000/- along with a reasonable quantum of interest would result in complete justice to the claimant.

¶86

Upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence on record, and the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, Point No. 1 is answered in favor of the claimant. The claimant is entitled for Rs.1,45,000/- instead of Rs.1,00,000/-, with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit.

¶87

Point No.2:

¶88

16. In the result , the appeal is allowed as follows:

¶89