B. S. A. SWAMY, J.

( 1 ) IN this L. P. A. the issue that falls for consideration is whether the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge of this court on appeal is empowered to grant higher compensa-tion. over and above the claim made by the claimants in O. P.

( 2 ) IN this case the claimant who was injured in a motor vehicle accident, that has taken place on 12. 1. 1989 had claimed rs. 1,00,000 as compensation.

( 3 ) THE Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 60,000 under different heads including an amount of Rs. 43,200, towards loss of future income on the basis of the salary certificate, i. e. , Exh. A-3, whereunder it was shown that he was drawing a salary of Rs. 500 only from a poultry at the time of the accident with 12 per cent interest per annum from the date of filing of the application.

( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the award, the respondent herein, i. e. , the claimant filed C. M. A. No. 1845 of 1991. The learned Judge enhanced the compensation payable towards loss of future income observing that "in assessing the compensation payable to a victim it is always necessary to take into account all the attending facts and circumstances of the case, the possibility of a person prospering in status and advancing in his earning capacities in future life" by placing reliance on a judgment of the Apex court in General Manager, Kerala State road Trans. Corpn. v. Susamma Thomas, 1994 ACJ 1 (SC) and arrived at that the loss of income would be of Rs. 7,200 per year. Thereafter the learned Judge applied the multiplier of 16 and awarded compensation towards loss of future income. The learned Judge also awarded a compensation of Rs. 20,000 for pain and suffering. In all, compensation of Rs. 1,39,700 with 12 per cent interest per annum from the date of presentation of O. P. till realization was granted.

( 5 ) AS stated supra, the claimant restricted his claim at Rs. 1,00,000 while claiming compensation, but the learned Judge relied on a judgment of this court in New india Assurance Co. Ltd. v. G. Lakshmi, 1996 ACJ 1068 (AP ).

( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant insurance company brought to our notice that: (1) Learned Judge reiterated his view sitting along with Justice A. Gopal Reddy in Andhra Pradesh State,road Trans. Corpn. v. Patan Shamshad Begum, 2001 acj 1399 (AP); (2) Sitting along with Justice V. Eswar-aiah in C. M. A. No. 1328 of 1995 dated 5. 7. 2001 as seen from page 17 of the subsequent judgment rendered by his lordship sitting along with Justice G. Rohini in Pidigala Linga Reddy v. Satla Srinivas, 2001 (6) ALD 429; (3) But the Hon ble Apex Court in Adi- kanda Sethi v. Palani Swami Saran Transports, 1997 ACJ 939 (SC), as well as; (4) A Full Bench of Gujarat High Court in Dr. Urmila J. Sangani v. Pragjibhai mohanlal Luvana, 2000 ACJ 1125 (Gujarat); (5) A Division Bench of this court in kollipara Veera Raghavamma v. S. Rag-havaraju, 1996 (3) ALT 483; (6) A judgment of Justice Vaman Rao in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Suthari lingaiah, 1999 (4) ALT 87; (7) A judgment of Justice N. V. Ramana in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Thudi mallamma, 2000 (6) ALT 585;have taken a converse view and held that the Tribunal or the court is not empowered to award higher compensation than the compensation claimed by the claimant himself; Unfortunately, the judgments, which have taken converse views, are not cited before the learned Judges who rendered the judgment on both sides of the principle. In any of the above referred judgments no reasons were given except in Dr. Urmila J. Sangani v. Pragjibhai Mohanlal luvana (supra ). Hence we are forced to review the ratio decidendi laid down in all these cases to find out which view is correct.

( 7 ) IN Lakshmi s case, 1996 ACJ 1068 (AP), the learned Judge having relied on section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (old Act) corresponding to section 168 of the new Act, observed that the court after giving an opportunity of being heard and after holding inquiry into the claim, as the case

Click Here to Read the rest of this document