The Tribunal has the power to award compensation in excess of the amount claimed by the claimant under Section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT :

G.B. Pattnaik, J. - This appeal is against the decision of the Second Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and claimant is the appellant.

2. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to award compensation more than the amount claimed by the claimant. The answer to the aforesaid question depends upon a true and correct interpretation of the provisions of Section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act").

3. The case of the claimant is that he was going in the bus bearing registration number ORB 2520 as its Conductor on 27-2-1980. The said vehicle went off the road and capsized at village Sarang near Soro at about 11.20 A. M. On account of such accident the left leg and the hand of the claimant got fractured and the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle. The claimant was then shifted to the hospital at Bhadrak and from there he was shifted to the S. C. B. Medical College Hospital, Cuttack, but the incapacity of the claimant remained and there is no prospect of any future earning. He was 24 years, old at the time of accident and was getting Rs. 500/- per month as his wage. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.

4. The owner of the vehicle in his written statement admitted about the accident, but took the stand that there was no rashness or negligence on the part of the driver in driving the vehicle. According to him, a vehicle was coming from the opposite direction with great speed and in order to avoid running over a cyclist, the said vehicle suddenly moved to its right. The driver of the vehicle which was carrying the claimant to avoid being hit by the vehicle coming from the front took his vehicle to the left not knowing that the soil was loose and on that score the vehicle capsized and the accident occurred.

The Insurer also filed a written statement denying the allegations of negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle of which the claimant was going as Conductor.

5. The Tribunal framed 5 issues and on discussion of materials before it came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver. The Tribunal further found that the claimant is entitled to get a sum of Rs. 3, 500/- towards medical expenses and Rs. 1, 500/ for future nursing and attendance. So far as pain and suffering and loss of amenties are concerned, the Tribunal found him to be entitled to an amount of Rs. 15,000/-. So far as future earning is concerned, the Tribunal came to hold that the total loss would be Rs. 1,20,000/- and by deducting thirty per cent on lump sum amount being paid, it would stand around Rs. 80,000/-. But since the claimant had claimed only Rs. 40,000/-, the Tribunal awarded compensation to the tuns of Rs, 40, 000/- and, therefore, the claimant has preferred this appeal.

6. Mr. Jena appearing for the appellant contends that u/s 110-8 of the Act, the Tribunal is required to hold an enquity and may make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and, therefore, the power of the Tribunal is not restricted by the amount of claim made in the claim petition and consequently, the Tribunal having determined the compensation in the present case to the tune of Rs. 80,000/- erred in law in restricting the amount to a sum of Rs. 40, 000/- merely because the claimant had claimed Rs. 40, 000/- in the claim petition. In support of the aforesaid contention, reliance has been placed on a Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in the Municipal Corporation of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Another Vs. Kisan Gangaram Hire and Others, a decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Mohammed Koya v. Balan 1937 ACJ 534 a decision of the Orissa High Court in the case of Balavadra Patra and Another Vs. Chief Engineer and Others, and another decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Ram