JUDGMENT

Archana Puri, J.

Challenge in the present appeal is to the Award dated 20.07.1993 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, thereby, granting compensation, on account of death of Kuldip Singh, in a motor vehicular accident.

2. On appraisal of the evidence adduced, learned Tribunal vide impugned Award, had granted compensation to the extent of Rs.4,20,000/-, qua death of Kuldip Singh, in the accident, which took place on 16.10.1991, due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1-Amarjit Singh, while driving fiat car bearing registration No.PAV-410.

3. Feeling aggrieved by the extent of compensation, so granted, the appellants-claimants have filed the present appeal, thereby, seeking enhancement of the compensation.

4. So far as, the fact of accident and manner of its taking place as well as the liability of the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, to be joint and several, are concerned, it is pertinent to mention that no appeal has been filed by these persons, to dispute the liability fastened upon them.

5. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants-claimants, only with regard to the interest, having not been granted, from the date of filing of the claim petition, till the decision of the same.

6. Now, it is submitted by learned legal aid counsel for the appellants that even though, at the time of filing of the appeal, only the denial of interest on the awarded amount, was challenged, but however, the compensation, so worked upon, is also not just and reasonable, which is also required to be taken care of. It is submitted that the compensation granted to the extent of Rs.4,20,000/-, is on lower side, which requires extensive enhancement. It is further submitted that there is no restriction upon the Tribunal/Court to grant the compensation, exceeding the amount, so claimed, even though, at first instance, only the appeal was filed to challenge the denial of interest.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurance company has submitted that the compensation, so granted, is just and reasonable. The appeal sans merit and the same be dismissed.

8. The MOTOR VEHICLES ACT is in the nature of social welfare legislation and its provisions make it clear that compensation should be justly determined. In Helen C. Rebello and others v. Maharashtra SRTC and Anr. , 1999 (1) SCC 90 , the Bench, held the following on the contours of 'just' compensation:-

"The word "just", as its nomenclature, denotes equitability, fairness and reasonableness having a large peripheral field. The largeness is, of course, not arbitrary; it is restricted by the conscience which is fair, reasonable and equitable, if it exceeds; it is termed as unfair, unreasonable, unequitable, not just."

9. Even in Smt. Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and anr., 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77, it has been held that the just compensation is adequate compensation and the Award must be just that- 'no less and no more'. The plea of the victim suffering from a cruel twist of fate, when asking for some more, is not extravagant, but it is for seeking appropriate recompense, to negotiate with the unforeseeable and the fortuitous twists, in his life. Therefore, while the money awarded by Courts can hardly redress the actual sufferings of the injured victim, the courts can make a genuine attempt to help restore the self-dignity of such claimant, by awarding 'just compensation'.

10. At this stage,