The duty to award 'just compensation' under the Motor Vehicles Act is not restricted by the claimant's stated amount, and the court has the authority to grant compensation exceeding the claimed amount based on evidence.

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 6.7.2017 passed by the High Court. By which judgment, the High Court enhanced the compensation granted to the Appellant from Rs. 1.50 lac to Rs. 2.50 lac.

2. The Appellant was a fruit seller whose right hand was amputated after the accident. In the claim petition, the claimant, at page 24 in para 4, has claimed that he is entitled for compensation of Rs. 9,05,000/- from the Respondents jointly and severally and the claimant is suffering from financial crisis, therefore, he is unable to pay court fees on the said amount. Therefore, he had restricted his claim to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/-. The Tribunal accepted the case setup by the Appellant and allowed the claim to Rs. 1.50 lacs.

3. Aggrieved by the said order, the appeal was filed in the High Court. The High Court found substance in the appeal and allowed the appeal by enhancing compensation from Rs. 1.50 lacs to Rs. 2.50 lacs. The High Court has observed that the said amount shall be just and fair compensation payable to the Appellant for the injuries suffered.

4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the mere fact that the Appellant has confined his claim to Rs. 3 lacs cannot be a factor in Appellant being not granted the fair and reasonable compensation for injuries suffered by him. The High Court having noticed that the Appellant was carrying business of fruits on a hand-cart, the amputation of right hand has made the business of the Appellant non-functional. The amount of Rs. 2.5 lacs awarded by the High Court is neither fair nor just compensation. It is further submitted by learned Counsel for the Appellant that this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction Under Article 142 of the Constitution can award just and reasonable compensation to the Appellant.

5. Learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that the Appellant having confined his claim to Rs. 3 lacs before the High Court cannot be allowed to contend that he is entitled for any higher compensation.

6. We have considered submission of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. There is no dispute between the parties that in the bus accident, right hand of the Appellant was crushed which had to be amputated. The Appellant was carrying on the business of selling fruits on a hand-cart which fact has also been noticed by the High Court. In para 4 of the claim petition, although the claimant has computed the compensation to Rs. 9,05,000/- on different heads but he confined his claim to Rs. 3 lacs due to the reason he was unable to deposit the court fee on Rs. 9,05,000/-.

Para 4 of the claim petition reads as follows:

"That due to the amputation of right hand the claimant has became permanently disabled person, he has lost his earning capacity. The claimant is unable to do any type of work and is leading a pity miserable life and therefore, the claimant is claiming compensation under following heads.

Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs. 9,05,00/- from the Respondents jointly and severally because the claimant has sustained the above loss, expenses because of the accident. However, the claimant is suffering from financial crises therefore, he is unable to deposit the court fees upon the said amount therefore, he has restricted his claim to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- and upon which court fees stamp of Rs. 2,372-50 ps. is paid herewith which is sufficient. If this Hon'ble Court comes to the conclusion the claimant is entitled to get more than Rs. 3,00,000/- towards compensation in that eventuality, the claimant is ready to deposit deficit court fees."

8. This Court in large number of cases has laid down that it is permissible to grant compensation of any amount in excess to that one which has been claimed. This Court in exercise of jurisdiction Under Article 142 of the Constitution has awarded just and reasonable compensation.

9. It is sufficient to refer a recent judgment in Ramla and Ors. vs. N