R.D. Dhanuka, J.

1. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant states that all the respondents are served. Affidavit of service has been already filed in this Court. Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are absent. By consent of parties, matter is heard finally. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 27th July, 2007 passed by the MACT, Thane allowing part of the claim made by the appellant. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award dated 27th July, 2007 the appellant has filed this appeal insofar as refusal of the tribunal to award the amount as computed in paragraph (19) of the judgment is concerned. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this appeal are as under:--

2. On 29th December, 1998, the appellant was going towards Wada on M-80 vehicle of which he was a pillion rider. The vehicle was on Wada-Bhiwandi road. When the M-80 vehicle came near village Kudus, the motor lorry came in high and excessive speeds and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed behind the vehicle which the applicant was riding which accident resulted in serious injuries to the appellant setout in the impugned judgment. The appellant filed claim before MACT. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 did not appear before tribunal. The matter proceeded with against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 ex parte. Respondent No. 3 opposed the petition by filing its written statement and denied that the accident had occurred due to negligence of the offending vehicle. The tribunal framed various issues and rendered a finding that the appellant had proved that he was injured in the said accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the respective drivers. M-80 scooter had already been ensured with the respondent No. 4 at the time of accident.

3. The tribunal in paragraph (19) of the impugned judgment and award computed the compensation under ten heads at Rs.5,06,800/-. In paragraphs (20) and (21) of the impugned judgment, the tribunal apportioned the amount of Rs.3,04,080/- and Rs.2,02,720/- amongst the owners and the insurer of motor lorry on the one hand and the owner and insurer of vehicle on the other hand respectively. The tribunal however granted claim of Rs.2,50,000/- only to the appellant on the ground that the appellant had not amended his petition for enhancement of the claim which according to the tribunal was necessary in view of the judgment of this Court in case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay vs. Kisan Gangaram Hire, 1987 Mh.L.J. 452 : 1987 ACJ 311 (Bom.). The tribunal accordingly directed respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the appellant and directed respondent Nos. 2 and 4 to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the appellant towards damages inclusive of interim compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.

4. It is not in dispute that none of the respondents have impugned the said judgment and award dated 27th July, 2007 and the findings rendered therein. I need not go into the validity of the findings rendered by the tribunal in this first appeal.

5. A short question that arises for consideration of this Court is whether enhanced claim of the appellant could have been rejected on the ground that appellant did not amend the statement of claim.

6. Mr. Mendon, learned counsel appearing for the appellant invited my attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh and others, reported in 2013 ACJ 1403 and in particular paragraphs 18 to 20 and would submit that it is duty of the tribunal to award equitable, fair and reasonable compensation with reference to the settled principles on assessment of damages ignoring the claim made in the application for compensation. It is submitted that though the tribunal had come to the conclusion that the appellant would be entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs.5,06,800/-, the tribunal rejected the claim as computed merely on the ground that in the statement of claim, the