The main legal point established in the judgment is that there is no restriction on the Tribunal/Court to award compensation amount exceeding the claimed amount under the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 03.03.2021 made in M.C.O.P.No.425 of 2017 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special District Court), Madurai (in-charge), in so far as they relate to quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the amount restricted in the claim petition, allow the above appeal.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order in M.C.O.P.No.425 of 2017 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special District Court), Madurai (in-charge). The appellants herein are the claimants and the respondents herein are the respondents in the claim petition.

2. Brief substance of the petition filed by the claimants is as follows:

On 20.05.2017 at about 8.20 a.m., when the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider in a two wheeler bearing registration number TN 59 AS 5913 along the Sivagangai main road, the rider of the two wheeler drove the vehicle in a slow and cautious manner, keeping the left side of the road. At that time, an auto, bearing registration number TN 64 A 2976 was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner turned the vehicle to the right side without any signal and hit against the two wheeler. The deceased died on his way to the hospital. The first respondent auto driver was responsible for the accident. The deceased was earning Rs.800/- per day as a milk vendor. The claimants are his dependants and they claim a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation.

3. Brief substance of the counter filed by the second respondent in the claim petition is as follows:

On the side of the respondent it is stated that the petition is not maintainable. The First Information Report was not against the auto driver. The auto driver was not having valid driving license at the time of accident. There was no badge endorsement in the driving license. It was the rider of the two wheeler who drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the auto. The auto was standing on the left side of the road and when the auto driver was observing the road traffic to turn the vehicle, it was the rider of the two wheeler, who dashed against the auto. The age, income and avocation of the deceased are all denied. The claim is excessive.

4. Three witnesses were examined and six documents were marked on the side of the petitioners. Two witnesses were examined and five documents were marked on the side of the respondents. Three documents were marked as Ex.X1 to Ex.X3. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation.

5. Against the award, the claimants filed this appeal on the following grounds:

The Tribunal ought to have awarded an amount of Rs.26,65,300/- as computed after the trial. The Tribunal ought not to have restricted the award amount. The Tribunal is competent and empowered to grant more compensation than what has been claimed by the claimants. The Tribunal after following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi case, Sarala Verma case and Amrit Sali Banu's case and also the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench in Andal vs Abinav Kannan case, has calculated the loss of income as Rs.25,89,300/-. Grant of compensation under the head of loss of consortium are very low. The grant of compensation for transport expenses, loss of estate, funeral expenses are very low.

6. On the side of the appellants, it is stated that the Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.13,700/- per month. After adding 40% towards future prospects. By applying multiplier 15 and considering the number of the claimants and after deducting 1/4 of the income, the Tribunal has fixed the loss of income as Rs.25,89,300/- which is reasonable. The Tribunal has awarded a lesser amount only on the ground that the claimant have restricted their claim. The Court has the power to grant more than what was claimed. The Tribunal is not reasonable in restricting the