The court reinstated that there is no restriction on awarding compensation exceeding the claimed amount if evidence supports a higher entitlement, affirming the principle of just compensation.

-

JUDGMENT:

A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J.

1. 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.

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

3. Heard learned counsel for the claimant and learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company.

4. 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.

5. 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).

6. Contending that he sustained multiple injuries and is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-, the claimant approached the learned Tribunal. However, the learned Tribunal determined the claimant's entitlement at Rs.1,45,000/- under the following heads:

-

7. 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.

8. 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.

Arguments in the appeal:

For the Claimant

-

9. Learned counsel for the claimant submits that the claim made 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.

For the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company:

10. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/Insurance 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.

11. The points that arise for consideration in this appeal are:

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

2) What is the result of the appeal?

-

Point No.1:

Precedential Guidance

Granting of more compensation than what claimed, if the claimant is otherwise entitled:

12. 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:

(1) Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and Others , [(2003) 2 SCC 274] , at para 21 of the judgment, that –

“..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.”

(2) Kajal Vs. Jagadish Chand and Ors. /b>., 20