Point of Law: Once it is found that the compensation to which the claimant is legally entitled, be it under any particular head or aggregate, is more than what is claimed, its denial would result in denial of 'just compensation'

ORDER :

Anil K. Narendran, J.

These appeals are preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellants-claimants in claim petitions filed under Section 166 of the Act before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals constituted under Section 165 of the Act, challenging the inadequacy of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

2. On 08.03.2019, when MACA No.480 of 2012 was taken up for consideration, the learned Standing Counsel for the insurer, namely, the National Insurance Company Ltd., raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the appeal. It was submitted that the appellant-claimant was granted compensation more than what was claimed in the claim petition filed before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Act. It was pointed out that only a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was claimed in the claim petition and the Tribunal has granted to the claimant a sum of Rs.1,07,600/-. According to the learned Standing Counsel, the claimant in a case of this nature cannot be treated as a 'person aggrieved', within the meaning of subsection (1) of Section 173 of the Act, so as to enable him to prefer an appeal challenging the award passed by the Tribunal, invoking the said provision and that the appeal is, therefore, not maintainable. The decision of the Division Bench in Mithun Subramanian v. Nidhish Eldo Joseph [2017 (3) KHC 710 : 2016 SCC OnLine Ker 41057 : 2018 ACJ 484] was cited by the learned Standing Counsel, in support of the objection raised as to the maintainability of the appeal.

3. In the order of reference, the learned Single Judge observed that, in Mithun Subramanian (supra), the Division Bench held that in a case where compensation more than what is claimed in the proceedings has been granted by the Tribunal, the claimant cannot be treated as a 'person aggrieved', within the meaning of sub-section (1) of Section 173 of the Act and the appeals instituted by the claimants in such cases are not maintainable. Placing reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.9581 of 2018, 11042 of 2018 and 11495 of 2018, the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant submitted that the decision of the Division Bench in Mithun Subramanian (supra) is no longer good law.

4. In the order of reference, the learned Single Judge noticed that Section 168 of the Act empowers the Tribunal to make an award determining the amount of compensation that appears to it to be just. ‘Just compensation’, it is settled by now, is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered by the victim or the dependants of the victim, as the case may be, on account of the accident, as far as money can do, by applying the well settled principles relating to the award of compensation. See: Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh [(2003) 2 SCC 274], Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mohd. Nasir [(2009) 6 SCC 280] and Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2009) 13 SCC 710]. In other words, in terms of the scheme of the statute, the duty to determine just compensation in a given case is a duty vested in the Tribunal. No limitation whatsoever is imposed in terms of the provisions of the Act on the said power of the Tribunal. The attempt of the Tribunal, therefore, should be to equate, as far as possible, the misery on account of the accident with the compensation, so that the victim or the dependants of the victim, as the case may be, should not face the vagaries of life on account of the discontinuance of the income earned by the victim. In the absence of any prescription in the statute as to the minimum or maximum of the compensation payable on any head to the claimant/claimants in the proceedings, the Tribunal is expected to fix the just compensation without succumbing to the technicalities of law. Further, after the amendment of the Act by Act 54 of 1994, with effect from 14.11.1994, the report on motor vehicle accident prepared by the police officer and forwarded t