Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of parties.

2. All these three appeals have been preferred by the original claimants against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Buldhana.

3. Facts giving rise to the appeals are as follows:

On 14.07.2000 all the deceased in the appeal boarded Autorikshaw No. MH 28C/7214. They were to go to their village. While the autorikshaw was passing by the National Highway it is alleged that truck no. MWD8561 coming from the opposite direction gave a dash to the said autorikshaw as a result of this autorikshaw was dragged by the said truck up to the distance of 30 ft. The occupants of the autorikshaw suffered injuries and died. The claimants contended that they were entitled to compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- but restricted their claim to Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of paucity of funds to pay court fee. They however assured to pay court fee if the amount exceeding the claim of Rs. 1,00,000/- is awarded by the Tribunal.

4. The said applications were opposed by the respondents-the owner of the truck and the Insurance Company.

5. The learned Judge of the Tribunal recorded the evidence and found that claimants were in fact entitled to more amount than what was claimed by them in the petition but the Tribunal ultimately passed award of Rs. 1,00,000/- since the claim was restricted by the claimants to Rs. 1,00,000/-. The claimants feel aggrieved by this order of not passing an award to the extent of the amount to which they were found to be entitled to.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondent-Insurance Company.

7. The claimants had restricted their claim to Rs. 1,00,000/- though they had in fact pleaded that they were entitled to higher amount of compensation. I quote here the relevant pleadings in the claim petition:

“year, and would have easily earned more than Rs. 10,00,000/- but as the claimant are not in position to make expenses for the huge amount, now for the time being, the claim Rs. 1,00,000/- & undertakes to pay the differences of the Tribunal fees, if the Hon'ble Tribunal grant enhanced compensation that claimed.”

It is obvious that claimants in fact contend that they were entitled to more compensation but since they were unable to meet the expenses they were restricting the claim to Rs. 1,00,000/-. It is also clear from the pleadings that the claimants have assured to pay court fee if the Court found that they were entitled to any sum exceeding Rs. 1,00,000/-.

8. In these cases i.e. in First Appeal No. 912 of 2008 i.e. Claim Petition No. 202 of 2000 the Tribunal found that claimants were entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,94,000/- but passed an award of Rs.1,00,000/- as the claim was restricted to that sum. First Appeal No. 917 of 2008 i.e. Claim petition no. 182 of 2000 the Tribunal found that claimants were entitled to Rs. 1,48,500/- but again passed an award of Rs. 1,00,000/- only. Similarly in First Appeal No. 821 of 2009 i.e. Claim Petition No. 237 of 2000 the claimants were entitled to Rs. 1,71,500/- but the award is for Rs. 1,00,000/-.

9. Thus although upon consideration of the evidence tendered before it Tribunal found as a fact that claimants were entitled to more compensation. Tribunal awarded that sum only, which was actually claimed in the petition. Therefore, the question as to whether the Tribunal can and could have awarded the compensation beyond the claim laid. To my mind the answer has to be in the affirmative. From the wording of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is clear that the Court should award that compensation which appears to it to be just. Once the Court comes to a conclusion about just amount of compensation that has to be awarded by the Tribunal. The award of any sum which is less than just would in fact be unjust. The payment of deficit court fee also cannot come in the way of the Court as the Court can always direct the deficit court fee to be recovered from the comp