Kondi Lakshmamma & 4 Ors. Vs T.Lakshminarasayana & Anr.

Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and Decree dated 16-05-2012 passed in OP No.247 of 2010 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Judge, Family Courtcum-Additional District Judge, Anantapur, Anantapur^District.

¶22

This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Order and Decree of the Trial Court and material papers in the petition and upon hearing arguments of Sri Ineni Venkata Prasad, Advocate for Appellants, and of Sri P.B.Narasimha Murty,^Advocate for Respondent No.2, and none appeared for Respondent No.1.

¶23

That the Appeal be and the same hereby is allowed;

¶24

That the claimants be and hereby are entitled for a compensation of Rs.4,46,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization;

¶25

That Rs.2,86,000/- be and hereby is apportioned to the share of Claimant No.1/the wife of the deceased with proportionate interest;

¶26

That Claimant Nos.2 to 5 be and hereby are entitled for apportionment of Rs.40,000/- each with proportionate interest;

¶27

That time for deposit be and hereby is fixed two months;

¶28

That on deposit, all the claimants be and hereby are entitled to withdraw the amount at once;

¶29

That both the respondents be and hereby are jointly and severally liable;

¶30

That the claimants be and hereby are liable to pay^{theCourtfeefor} the enhanced part of the compensation, before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal; and

¶31

That there be no order as to costs in this Appeal.

¶32

Sd/- G HELA NAIDU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To.

The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge, Anantapur, Anantapur^District.

¶37

Two CD Copies

¶38

BSV

¶39

sree

¶40

HIGH COURT DATED:14/08/2025

¶41

DECREE MAGMA NO. 2760 OF 2012

¶42

5 3 mug 2025 ^ Current Seciion . ^

¶43

ALLOWING THE MAGMA WITHOUT COSTS

¶44

APHC010010552012

¶45

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶46

THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUSj&J TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶47

PRESENT

¶48

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

¶49

motor accident civil miscellaneous APPFAI NO: 2760 OF 2012

¶50

Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and Decree dated 16-05-2012 passed in OP No.247 of 2010 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum-Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge, Anantapur, Anantapur^District.

¶51

Between:

¶52

Kondi Lakshmamma, W/o.Bheemanna , aged about 58 years.

¶53

Housewife-Cooly, R/o.Tadipatri Town. Now R/o.Digumarri Village,

¶54

Narpala Mandal, Anantapur District.

¶55

Kondi Peddanna, S/o.Bheemanna, aged about 38 years, Cooly,

¶56

R/o.Tadipatri Town. Now R/o.Digumarri Village Narpala Mandal, Anantapur District.

¶57

Kondi Gurappa, S/o.Bheemanna, aged about 34 years, R/o.Tadipatri Town. Now R/o.Digumarri Village, Narpala Mandal, Anantapur^District.

¶58

Kondi Gurappa, S/o.Bheemanna aged about 34 years, R/o.Tadipatri Town. Now R/o.Digumarri Village, Narpala Mandal Anantapur District,

¶59

Kondi Chinna Pedakka, 52 years. Dependant, R/o.Tadipatri Town.

¶60

Now R/o.Digumarri Village, Narpala Mandal, Anantapur^District.

¶61

...Appellants/Petitioners

¶62

AND

¶63

T.Lakshminarayana, S/o.Subbanna, D.No.1/886 Digumarri Village,

¶64

Narpala Mandal, Anantapur District. nd

¶65

IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co., Ltd, rep by it’s Manager, 2 Floor, Umachambers, Banjara Hills Road, Panjagutta, Hyderabad-500 082.

¶66

...Respondent/Respondents

¶67

Counsel for the Appellants: Sri InenI Venkata Prasad

¶68

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: None appeared

¶69

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri P.B.Narasimha Murty

¶70

The Court made the following:

ir

1

j

APHC010010552012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶76

[3520]

¶77

THURSDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶78

PRESENT

¶79

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

¶80

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2760/2012

¶81

Between:

¶82

1.KONDI LAKSHMAMMA & 4 ORS, W/O.BHEEMANNA, OCC; COOLY R/O.TADIPATRI, NOW R/O.DIGUMARRI [V], NARPALA [M], ANANTAPUR DISTRICT.

¶83

2.KONDI PEDDANMNA, S/O.BHEEMANNA, OCC; COOLY R/O.TADIPATRI. NOW R/O.DIGUMARRI [V], NARPALA [M], ANANTAPUR DISTRICT.

¶84

3.KONDI GURAPPA, S/O.BHEEMANNA, OCC: COOLY R/O.TADIPATRI. NOW R/O.DIGUMARRI [V], NARPALA [M], ANANTAPUR DISTRICT.

¶85

4.KONDI GURAPPA, S/O.BHEEMANNA, OCC: COOLY R/O.TADIPATRI. NOW R/O.DIGUMARRI [V], NARPALA [M], ANANTAPUR DISTRICT.

¶86

5.KONDI CHINNA PEDAKKA, OCC; DEPENDANT R/O.TADIPATRI.^NOW R/O.DIGUMARRI [V], NARPALA [M], ANANTAPUR DISTRICT.

¶87

...APPELLANT(S)

¶88

AND

¶89

1.T LAKSHMINARASAYANA ANR, S/O.SUBBANNA R/0.1/886, DIGUMARRI [V], NARPALA [M], ANANTAPUR DISTRICT.

¶90

2.IFFCOTOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD, REP BY ITS MANAGER 0/0.2ND FLOOR, UMACHAMBERS, BANJARA HILLS

¶91

2

¶92

ROAD, PANJAGUTTA, HYDERABAD-500 082.

¶93

'%,■

¶94

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶95

Counsel for the Appellant(S):

¶96

1.INENI VENKATA PRASAD

¶97

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶98

P B NARASIMHA MURTY

¶99

2..

¶100

The Court made the following;

¶101

3

¶102

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA M.A.C.M.A.No.2760 of 2012

¶103

JUDGMENT:

¶104

This is an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act directed against the decree and order dated 16.05.2012 passed in O.P.No.247 of 2010 by the Motor Accidents Clainns Tribunal-cum-Judge, Family Court-cumAdditional District Judge, Anantapur (for short “the learned MACT”). The claim was allowed against the owner-cum-driverof the Auto bearing No.AP 02 X 5958 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”).

¶105

Dissatisfied by the dismissal of the claim against the Insurance Company, the claimants are before this Court.

¶106

The claimants before the learned MACT are the appellants herein. Respondent No.1 is the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle. Respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle.

¶107

The learned MACT found the entitlement of the claimants at Rs.2,00,200/- as against the claim of Rs.2,00,000/- but dismissed the claim against the Insurance Company on the ground that the^claimants failed to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle had driving license at relevant time.

¶108

Factual Matrix:

¶109

5(i). One Kondi Bheemanna (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), aged about 60 years, boarded the offending vehicle on 29.12.2009^atabout10.00

¶110

4

¶111

y ■'v

¶112

A.M. for travelling to Narpala. When the offending vehicle was on the road from Diggumarri to Narpala, within the limits of Narpala Police Station, Anantapuram District, the driver of the offending vehicle lost control due to high speed and negligent driving and the offending vehicle turned turtle, whereby the accident occurred and the deceased succumbed to injuries while shifting him to the hospital.

¶113

5(ii). A case in Crime No. 147 of 2009 was registered and subsequently charge sheet was laid against the driver of the offending^vehicle. 5(iii). The deceased was aged about ‘60’ years, working as Cobbler and earning Rs.5,000/- per month by the date of accident.

¶114

5(iv). Claimant No.1 is the wife and claimant Nos.2 to 5 are the children of the deceased. They lost valuable financial support and also dependency. 5(v). Since Respondent No.1 is the owner-cum-driver, the tortfeasor, and as the offending vehicle was insured with Respondent No.2, both are liable to pay the compensation.

¶115

Respondent No.1 remained ex parte.

¶116

Case of Respondent No.2:

¶117

7(i). The claimants shall prove the pleaded accident, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, valid and effective policy issued for the offending vehicle, compliance with the conditions of policy, valid and effective driving license for the driver of the offending vehicle, age, occupation, income of the

¶118

5

¶119

deceased, dependency of the claimants and entitlement of the claimants for compensation.

¶120

7(ii). It IS also asserted by Respondent No.2 that all the claimants are not dependents. 7(111). The learned MACT framed issues touching the negligence and entitlement of claimants for compensation, as well as the liability of the respondents, and held the issue relating to negligence in favour of the claimants after referring to the evidence of PW. 1 and documents Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A2-lnquest Report, Ex.A3-Post Mortem Certificate, Ex.A4-Charge sheet.

¶121

7(iv). With regard to the liability of the respondehts to pay compensation, since Respondent,No. 1, the owner-cum-driver remained ex parte, he is found liable.

¶122

7(v). Learned MACT observing that the respondent Insurance Company issued notice for production of the driving license^and as the same was not produced, an adverse inference can be drawn against the driver of the offending vehicle found that Respondent No.2 is not liable to pay compensation. 8. Learned MACT while quantifying the compensation, taken income of deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month, i.e. Rs.36,000/- per annum, adopted multiplier ‘8’ and deducted 1/3'"^ of the same towards personal expenditure and found loss of dependency at Rs. 1,90,700/-. Awarded amount of Rs.5,000/towards loss of consortium to tfie 1®‘ petitioner / wife of the deceased and

¶123

6

¶124

Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenditure and Rs.2,500/-^{towardslossofestate} and the total entitlement of the claimants rounded to Rs.2,00,000/-, by referring to the claim made by the claimants at Rs.2,00,000/-.

¶125

Arguments in the appeal:

¶126

For the claimants:

¶127

9(i). Learned MACT erred in dismissing the claim against Respondent No.2 Insurance Company and failed to take note that no positive evidence is adduced by the Respondent-Insurance Company to show^{thattherewasno} driving license for the driver of the offending vehicle. 9(ii). The learned MACT erred in appreciating that the burden of proof lies on the Insurance Company to show the absence of driving^license. 9(iii). The learned MACT also erred in appreciating that more compensation can be awarded than claimed if the claimants are entitled. Taking of income at Rs.3000/- and quantification of compensation are irrational.

¶128

For the Respondent-Insurance Company.

¶129

The learned MACT has rightly appreciated the effort^{oftheInsurance} Company in issuing notice for production of driving license and the consequence of lapse on the part of the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle in producing the same and the consequential^{effectofviolations} of policy conditions. Therefore, there are no grounds^{tooverturnthedismissalof} the claim against the Insurance Company.

¶130

7

¶131

r

¶132

Extensive arguments are submitted by both sides. Perused^therecord.

¶133

Thoughtful consideration is given to the arguments advanced by the both sides. 12. The points that arise for determination in this appeal^are:

¶134

1. Whether the pleaded accident is the outcome of the negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver viz. the Respondent^No.1?

¶135

1. Whether the Respondent No.2 Insurance Company is not liable to pay

¶136

compensation on the ground of absence of driving license?

¶137

1. Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation? If so, to v/hat quantum and what is the liability of the respondents?

¶138

1. What is the result of the appeal?

¶139

Point No.1:

¶140

P.W.2- Minigi Obilesu is the informant under Ex.AI-FIR,^andhe is cited as LW.1 in Ex.A4-charge sheet. Evidence of PW.2 coupled^{withEx.AI-FIR} and Ex.A2-lnquest report, Ex.A3-Post Mortem certificate and Ex.A4-charge sheet are found sufficient to believe the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle particularly when they are seen in the light of the provisions of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 476 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, and also the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bimla Devi and others vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation^ vide para No. 15. Therefore, the point relating to negligence^answered in favour of the appellant claimants and against the respondents.

¶141

2009 (13) see 530

¶142

Point No.2:

¶143

The Insurance Company relied on evidence of one C. Imran, R.W.1, working as Relationship Executive of Insurance Company who has admitted that the Policy was in force by the date of accident and deceased was third party to the Insurance Company, He has also admitted that no documents are filed to show that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid driving license by the date of accident, It was specifically suggested to him that the driver was possessing valid driving license. The evidence of PW.2 and Ex.BInotice dated 14.07.2011 and Ex.B2 -postal acknowledgment gained favourable nod of the learned MACT. This was a notice got issued to cause production of driving license before the Court suggesting that adverse inference will be drawn. Whether the duty of the Insurance Company ends with issuing notice is an important question. It is not the case that the charge sheet was laid with the allegation that there was no driving license for the driver of the offending vehicle.

¶144

Section 181 of the Motor vehicles Act or any other related provisions touching absence of driving licence are not invoked in the charge sheet. MVI report IS no. produced. The Investigation Officer is also not summoned to show that the investigation officer has collected any information as to absence of driving license. No convincing efforts but the learned MACT has readily accepted to draw adverse inference on the strength of notice issued under Ex.B2.

¶145

9

¶146

/

¶147

It is pertinent to note that the driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle remained ex parte and the claimants are third parties. No steps are taken through Court process for production of the documents from any other of the sources like from RTA officials or at least from the Respondent No.1, the owner-cum-driver. Therefore, legally acceptable efforts from Insurance Company are not found. Burden to prove absence of driving^{licenselieswith} the insurer, no convincing evidence is produced. 17. It is relevant to note the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Swaran Singh^,^{thattheburdento} prove the violation lies with the Insurance Company^{astobreachofconditions}

¶148

of policy, vide para Nos.66 to 70, which read as follows:

¶149

A bare perusal of the provisions of Section 149 of^{theActleadsto} only one conclusion that the usual rule is that once the assured proves that the accident is covered by the compulsory insurance clause, it is for the insurer to prove that it comes within an exception.

¶150

In MacGillivray on Insurance Law it is stated: “25-82. Burden of Proof—Difficulties may arise in connection with the burden of proving that the facts of any particular^casefall within this exception. The usual rule is that once^{theassuredhas} proved that the case comes within the general risk, it is for the insurers to prove that it comes within an exception. It has, therefore, been suggested In some American decisions that, where the insurers prove only that the assured exposed^himself to danger and there is no evidence to show why he did so, they cannot succeed, because they have not proved that his

¶151

(2004) 3 see 297

¶152

10

¶153

behaviour was voluntary or that the clanger was unnecessary. Since an extremely heavy burden is imposed on the insurers if they have to prove the state of mind of the assured, it has been suggested in Canadian decisions that the court should presume that the assured acted voluntarily and that, where he does an apparently dangerous and foolish act, such danger was unnecessary, until the contrary is shown. In practical terms, therefore, the onus does in fact lie on the claimant to explain the conduct of the assured where there is no apparent reason^for exposing himself to an obvious danger. ”

¶154

In Rukmani v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [(1998)^9SCC160 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 244 : 1999 ACJ 171] this Court while upholding the defences available to the Insurer to the effect that the vehicle In question was not being driven by a person holding a licence, held that the burden of the Insurer would not be discharged when the evidence which was brought on record was that the Inspector of Police In his examination-in-chief merely stated:

¶155

“My enquiry revealed that the 1st respondent did not produce the licence to drive the abovesaid scooter. The 1st respondent even^after my demand did not submit the licence since he was not having it.” (SCC p. 161, para 3)

¶156

The proposition of law Is no longer res Integra that the person who alleges breach must prove the same. The insurance company is, thus, required to establish the said breach by cogent evidence. In the event the Insurance company fails to prove that there has been breach of conditions of policy on the part of the insured, the insurance company cannot be absolved of its liability. (See Sohan Lai Passi [(1996) 5 SCC 21 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 871].)

¶157

Apart from the above, we do not intend to lay down anything further i.e. degree of proof which would satisfy the aforementioned

¶158

11

¶159

requirement inasmuch as the same would indisputably^{dependuponthe} facts and circumstances of each case. It will also depend upon the terms of contract of insurance. Each case may pose a different^problemwhich must be resolved having regard to a large number of^{factorsgoverningthe} correct case including conduct of parties as regards duty to inform, disclosure, suppression, fraud on the insurer etc. It will also depend upon the fact as to who is the owner of the vehicle and^{thecircumstancesin} which the vehicle was being driven by a person having^no valid and effective licence. No hard-and-fast rule can, therefor,^belaiddown. If in-a given case there exists sufficient material to draw^{anadverseinference} against either the insurer or the insured, the Tribunal^maydoso. The parties alleging breach must be held to have succeeded^{inestablishingthe} breach of conditions of the contract of insurance, on the part of the insurer by discharging its burden of proof The Tribunal, there^cannotbeany doubt, must arrive at a finding on the basis of the^{materialsavailableon} records.

¶160

Therefore, the stand of the Insurance Company found not tenable. Findings of the learned MACT in that connection are^{foundnottenable.Hence,} the point is answered in favour of the claimants concluding^{thattheInsurance} Company is also liable to pay the compensation.

¶161

Point No.3.:

¶162

Quantum of Compensation:

¶163

Precedential quidance:-

¶164

a) Adoption of Multiplier, Multiplicand and Calculation:

¶165

19(i). Hon’ble Apex Court to have uniformity of practice^{andconsistency} in awarding just compensation provided certain guidelines^{inSarlaVerma(Smt.)}

¶166

-tW ■'V

¶167

12

¶168

and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr.^ vide paragraph Nos. 18 and 19, while prescribing a table directed adoption of suitable multiplier mentioned in column No.4 of the table. As per the observations in the judgment the claimants have to establish the following:

¶169

Age of the deceased.

¶170

Income of the deceased.

¶171

Number of dependents,

¶172

(ii). Hon’ble Apex Court directed certain steps while determining the compensation, they are:

¶173

Step No.1:

¶174

Ascertain the multiplicand, which shall be the income of the deceased he / she should have contributed to the dependents and the same can be arrived after deducting certain part of personal living expenses of the deceased.

¶175

Step No.2:

¶176

Ascertaining Multiplier with reference to age of the deceased. This shall be with reference to the table provided and table is provided in judgment itself.

¶177

Step No.3:

¶178

Calculation of the compensation.

¶179

Final Step:

¶180

After calculation adding of certain amount towards conventional heads towards loss of estate, loss of consortium, funeral expenditure, cost of

¶181

^ 2009 (6) see 121

¶182

13

¶183

transport, cost of medical expenses for treatment of^{thedeceasedbeforethe} death etc. are advised.

¶184

b) Adding of future prospects:

¶185

20(i). Enhancing the scope for awarding just compensation,^{theHon’bleApex} Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay^{SethiandOthers'^} case guided for adding of future prospect, In respect of permanent employment, 50% where the deceased is below 40 years,^30%wherethe deceased is 40-50 years and 15% where the deceased^{is50-60years.}

¶186

(ii). The actual salary to be taken shall be after^{deductingtaxes.} Further, in respect of self employed on fixed salary addition is^{recommended,at40%for} the deceased below 40 years, at 25% where the deceased is between 40-50 years, at 10% where the deceased is between 50-60 years. Further, adding of compensation for loss of estate, loss of consortium^{andfuneralexpensesat} Rs. 15,000/- and Rs.40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively^{isrecommendedby} Flon’ble Apex court with an addition of 10% for every^{threeyearsinPranay} Sethi’s case.

¶187

c) Loss of Consortium under the heads of parental and^{filialconsortium:}

¶188

Further enlarging the scope for awarding just and reasonable compensation in Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram

¶189

'’2017(16) see 680

¶190

14 V

¶191

and Others^, Hon’ble Apex Court observed that compensation can be awarded under the heads of loss of consortium not only to the spouse but also to the children and parents under the heads of parental and filial consortium.

¶192

d) Just Compensation:

¶193

In Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh and others^, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para Nos. 10 and 11 made relevant observations, they are as follows:

¶194

Whether the Tribunal is competent to award compensation in excess of what is claimed in the application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is another issue arising^{forconsiderationin} this case. At para 10 of Nagappa case [Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh (2003) 2 see 274 : 2003 SCC (eri) 523 : AIR 2003 SC 674], it was held as follows: (See p. 280) “10. Thereafter, Section 168 empowers the eiaims Tribunal to ‘make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just’. Therefore, the only requirement for determining the compensation is that it must be ‘Just’. There is no other limitation or restriction on its power for awarding just compensation. ” The principle was followed in the later decisions in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Mohd. Nasir [(2009) 6 SCC 280 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 877 : (2009) 2 SCC (CrI) 987] and in NIngamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2009) 13 SCC 710 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 241 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1213]

¶195

Underlying principle discussed in the above decisions is with regard to the duty of the court to fix a just compensation and It has now become settled law that the court should not succumb to niceties or technicalities, In such matters. Attempt of the court should be to equate, as far as possible, the misery on account of the accident with the compensation so that the Injured/the dependants should not face the vagaries of life on account of the discontinuance of the income earned by the victim.

¶196

" (2018) 18 see 130 ® (2013) 9 see 54

¶197

15

¶198

Claimant No.1 alone is the dependant and the others being major children are not dependents but they are entitled for compensation under the head of loss of love and affection or loss of parental consortium. The age of the deceased is ‘60’ years as per the Inquest Report. Multiplier applicable for the age ‘60’ years is ‘9’. For the age group ‘60’ years, future prospects need not be added. The deceased is said to be a Cobbler. So his income, upon considering the socio-economic status of the year 2009, can be taken at Rs.3000/- per month and the same comes to Rs.36,000/- per annum. If 1/3^^ of the same is deducted towards personal expenditure, his contribution can be taken at Rs.24,000/-. Upon application of multiplier ‘9’, loss of dependency comes to Rs.2,16,000/-(Rs.24,000/- x 9).

¶199

In the light of the precedential guidance and in view^{ofthereasonsand} evidence referred above, the entitlement of the claimants for reasonable compensation awarded under other heads requires revisit,^{whichshallbeas}

¶200

follows:

¶201

SI. No.	Head	Fixed by this Appellate Court
1.	Loss of dependency	Rs.2,16,000/-
2.	Loss of consortium (for five claimants)	Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.40,000/- each x5)
3.	Loss of estate	Rs.15,000/-
4.	Funeral expenses	Rs.15,000/-
	Total:	Rs.4,46,000/-

¶202

16

¶203

For the reasons aforesaid, it is found that the claimants^{areentitledfora} compensation of Rs.4,46,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Both the respondents are jointly and severally liable. Point No.3 is answered accordingly.

¶204

Granting of more compensation than what claimed, if the claimants are

¶205

otherwise entitled

¶206

The legal position with regard to awarding more compensation^thanwhat 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^madein:

¶207

(1) Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and Others^, at para 21 of the judgment, that-

¶208

there is no restriction that the Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation amount exceeding the claimed amount. The function of^{theTribunal/Court} is to award “just” compensation, which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record.”

¶209

(2) Kajal Vs. Jagadish Chand and Ors.® at para 33 of the judgment, as

¶210

follows:-

¶211

“33. l/l/e are aware that the amount awarded by us^{ismorethantheamount} claimed. However, it is well settled law that in the^{motoraccidentclaim}

¶212

' (2003) 2 see 274

¶213

^2020 (04) see 413

¶214

17

¶215

¥

¶216

petitions, the Court must award the just compensation^{and,incase,thejust} compensation is more than the amount claimed, that^{mustbeawarded} especially where the claimant is a minor."

¶217

{3) Ramla and Others Vs. National Insurance Company^Limitedand

¶218

Others^ at para 5 of the judgment, as follows:-

¶219

“5. Though the claimants had claimed a total compensation^{of Rs25,00,000} in their claim petition filed before the Tribunal, we feel that the compensation which the claimants are entitled to is^{higherthanthesameas} mentioned supra. There is no restriction that the Court^cannotaward 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^{whichisreasonableonthe} basis of evidence produced on record. It cannot be^{saidtohavebecome} time-barred. Further, there is no need for a new cause^{ofactiontoclaiman} enhanced amount. The courts are duty-bound to award just compensation. ”

¶220

Point No.4:

¶221

For the aforesaid reasons and in view of the findings of point Nos.1 to 3, point No.4 is answered as follows:

¶222

In the result,

¶223

(i) The appeal is allowed, (ii) Claimants are entitled for a compensation of Rs.4,46,000/with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date^{ofpetitiontillthe}

date of realization.

'^(2019) 2 see 192

18

A- <y