JUDGMENT

B.N. MAHAPATRA, J. — These two appeals arise out of an award dated 09.07.2009 passed by the 2nd M.A.C.T., Cuttack in Misc. Case No.505 of 1998. MACA No.848 of 2009 has been filed by the claimant-appellants for enhancement of the compensation whereas MACA No.1133 of 2009 has been filed by the insurer-M/s. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. for grant of right to make recovery of the awarded amount from the owner of the vehicle.

Since the facts and law involved in these appeals are one and the same, both the appeals are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

2.The facts and circumstances giving rise to the present appeal are that the deceased Surendra Kumar Sahoo died in a vehicular accident which took place on 15.12.1997. The claimants (appellants in MACA No.848 of 2009) filed a claim petition before the 2nd M.A.C.T., Cuttack (for short, ‘Tribunal’) claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs). After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.2,44,800/- (Rupees two lakhs forty-four thousand eight hundred) excluding funeral expenses and loss of consortium. However, the Tribunal limited the said compensation to Rs.2,00,000/- on the ground that in the claim petition the claimants had made a claim only to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-. Hence, the present appeal.

3.Mr. B. Sahoo, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants (in MACA No.848 of 2009) submits that under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Tribunal is required to determine the just compensation payable to the claimants irrespective of the amount of compensation claimed by the claimants. It is further submitted that once the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the amount of just compensation is Rs.2,44,800/-, it should not have limited the same to Rs.2,00,000/-. In support of his contention he relied upon the judgment of the apex Court in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh and others, AIR 2003 SC 674 and this Court in Mulla Md. Abdul Wahid v. Abdul Rahim and another,* 76 (1993) C.L.T. 605.

4.Mr. G.P. Dutta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of M/s. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., submits that the Tribunal has rightly limited the amount of compensation to the extent claimed by the claimants. It is further submitted that at the relevant time of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid driving licence. Hence, right of recovery of the awarded amount from the owner of the vehicle may be granted to the Insurance Company.

5.Now the issues involved in the present appeals are :

(i)Whether the Tribunal has duty to determine the just compensation irrespective of the amount of compensation claimed by the claimants ?

(ii)Whether the Insurance Company is entitled to grant of right of recovery of the amount of compensation from the owner of the vehicle ?

6.So far as issue No.(i) is concerned, it is not in dispute that after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.2,44,800/- excluding the funeral expenses and compensation for loss of consortium. However, the Tribunal limited the said amount of compensation to Rs.2,00,000/- on the ground that in the claim petition the claimants had claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-. Section 168 of the M.V. Act deals with award of Claims Tribunal. The said section empowers the Claims Tribunal to determine the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just. Therefore, the Tribunal is duty bound to determine the just compensation under Section 168 of the M.V. Act in the given circumstances in a particular case. There is no restriction that the compensation could be awarded only up to the amount claimed by the claimants. This being the intention of the legislature, the determination of just compensation as required u