Courts are empowered to award compensation exceeding the amount claimed in motor accident cases as the Motor Vehicles Act is beneficial legislation, ensuring just compensation including future prospects and filial consortium.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred by the appellants/claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 13.01.2014 passed in M.V.O.P. No.356 of 2012 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short, “the Tribunal”), whereby the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit, for the death of late Mohd.Azaaz @ Noor (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) in a motor vehicle accident.

2) The brief facts of the case are that on 13.10.2010, while the deceased and his friend were proceeding on a motor cycle from Borabanda to Zaheerabad, near Digwal village limits, a lorry bearing registration No. AP 29T 1404, driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against their motor cycle. As a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. The appellants, being the parents of the deceased, filed the aforesaid claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. The respondents, who are the insured and the insurer of the crime lorry filed counter affidavit and denied the manner of accident as pleaded by the claimants and the age and avocation of the deceased, and further disputing the liability, sought for dismissal of the claim petition. The Tribunal after evaluating the oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle. Further, the Tribunal taking the income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- and by deducting 50% towards living and personal expenses and by applying the multiplier of 18, and by adding extra income of 30%, arriving at Rs.6,31,800/-, but as the claim is for Rs.5,00,000/-, restricted the compensation to Rs.5,00,000/- and apportioned the amount among the claimants. The respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally made liable to pay the amount. Not being satisfied with the compensation, the present appeal is filed by the claimants.

3) Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submitted that the deceased was a salesman by profession and was earning an amount of Rs.5,000/-, but the Tribunal has taken the income only as Rs.4,500/- and the same needs to be enhanced. He submits that as per the judgment of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi , 1(2017) 16 SCC 680, an addition of 40% of the established income shall be made towards future prospects, and the claimants are also entitled to conventional heads, but the Tribunal added only an amount of 30% towards extra income, and did not grant any amount under conventional heads, and further as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram ²2018 LawSuit (SC) 904, the claimants 1 and 2 are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards filial consortium, as they lost their bachelor son. It is submitted that it is well settled that, based on evidence, if the claimants are entitle to more compensation, than claimed, the said amount can be granted, but the Tribunal in the present case, restricted the compensation to the claimed amount, though it found that they are entitled to more compensation. With these submissions, the learned counsel sought to enhance the compensation.

4) On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2-Insurance Company supported the award passed by the Tribunal and contended that the compensation awarded