AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The Insurance Companyappellant has filed this appeal challenging the award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dated: 18.02.1995.
The award has been challenged in this appeal on the following two main grounds:
1) That the respondents No. 1 had claimed a compensation of Rs.67, 300/ only, whereas an compensation of Rs. 1.05 lacs has been awarded in
her favour. It has also been averred that the interest has been awarded on the whole awarded amount; whereas some of the amount has been
awarded to the appellant for future exigencies on which amounts no interest could be awarded.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Whether the Tribunal can award compensation more than that is claimed by the respondent No.1
(petitioner) or not, has S not still been authoritatively decided by the Courts. Various judgments have been cited at the Bar, but none of the
judgments has laid down any law. Merely a reference has been made in some of the judgments that a claimant was entitled to such and such
amount, but since he has claimed such amount, therefore, the claimed amount was awarded. In this connection, the learned counsel for appellant
has cited a judgment titled: United Indian Insurance Company Vs. Smt. Bimlesh and others reported in 1991 (Volume 1) ACC 113. This is a
judgment form Punjab and Haryana High Court. In the said case, observation has been made by the Court in the following manner
Total compensation would come to Rs. 1,68,000/ Since in the claim petition a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/ was claimed, the claimants are held entitled
to a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/
Another judgment cited at the Bar is from Gujrat High Court reported in AIR 1995 Gujrat 170 titled: Kulsumbai V/s Shadgul G. Patadiys. In
this case also, only a reference has been made on the lines of the judgments, mentioned earlier (supra). Another judgment cited is titled: Satish
Kumar Vs. Zile Singh and another reported in 1989 (Volume 1) ACC 369 which is from Punjab and Haryana High Court. In this case a
compensation of Rs. 40,000/ was claimed by the claimant. After a long time, an application for amendment of the claim petition was moved, which
was rejected by the appellate court and the compensation of Rs. 40,000/ awarded by the Tribunal, was maintained.
On the other hand, counsel for respondent No. 1 has cited a judgment from Bombay High Court titled: Ramu Tolaram and others Vs.
Amirchand Hansraj Gupta and others reported in 1988 ACJ page 24. In this case, a compensation of Rs. 15,000/had been claimed, but a
compensation of Rs. 20,000/ was awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant. When the argument was made that the Tribunal could not have given
an award for an amount higher than the amount claimed, the Court made the following observations:
I am inclined to take the view that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is quite apart from being reasonable. So far as the reasonableness of the
award is concerned, it can hardly be disputed. A man of 28 years of age has died. The Tribunal has taken his age to be 35 years. I am assuming
that his age was 35 years. Further, the Tribunal held his remaining life span to be 25 years. I see no reason why it should (SIC) not be so. At least
till the age of 60, the man could have worked and provided where withal to his family. The general damages of Rs. 15,000/ are, therefore,
themselves very much in adequate. Further, the widow is certainly entitled to damaged for loss of consortium and the amount of Rs. 5,000/ granted
on that account cannot be said to be much of a munificence. The only technical objection, therefore, would be as to whether the court can award
the amount larger than the one claimed. On this point, there may be some difficulty. When Court fees are required to be paid on any claim ad
voloram, the fact that the claim is restricted to a smaller amount and the fact that the court fees commensurate with the claim is paid would have a
telling effect and the court would be helpless in granting to the applicant more than what is claimed by him. But, in the instant case, the claim of the
claimant was itself nebulous. From the prayer clause it is clear that though Rs. 15,000/ is specified, it is further stated that such other amount as the
court might find just, proper and reasonable should be paid. This means that the claim is not restricted to Rs. 15,000/, but the extent of the claim is
left to the Court. Further, the point to be noted is that the court fee payable on the claim is not ad valorem court fee but fixed court fee. If that is the
position then there is no reason why this discrepancy in the in the statement made in para 21 and in the prayer clause should not be resolved in
favour of the claimant..........
From the aforesaid observation, it becomes clear the said Court has not laid down any law. In the facts and circumstances of the case before
the said Court, it came to the conclusion that the claimant herself had not restricted her claim to Rs. 15.000/, but she had left it open to the
Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 20,000/ to the claimant.
Now coming to the facts of the present case, supra "" 14"" of the claim petition needs a mention, which is reproduced here in below:
Quantum of compensation demanded and grounds thereof.
= The petitioner suffer multiple injuries on her body including fractures on her left leg on this account hereby put her claim of compensation to the
tune of Rs. 67,300/ in the following matter:
a) Compensation for pain and mental shocks caused to the petitioners due to the injuries suffered in this accident Rs. 20,000/
b) Cost of medicines and other treatments given to the petitioner during this period and medicines in future to be taken Rs. 10,000/;
c) Fee paid to the Dr. O.RBhagat for insisting at home of the petitioner Rs. 500/;
d) Expenditure incurred on special diet given to the petitioner as per directions for the Doctor and also to be given in future Rs. 10,000/;
e) That the petitioner could not move and is not capable to do the work of tailoring out of which the petitioner use to earn Rs. 400/ p.m. and this
loss has to be suffered by the petitioner near about six months more Rs.1,800/;
f) Inconvenience caused to the relatives of the injured = Rs. 2,000/;
g) After the accident and after the treatment, the fracture leg will not get the same force as left leg was previously holding and damage due to this,
the petitioner shall suffer damage by permanent disablement = Rs. 20,000/;
After para ""17"", the petitioner (respondent No.1 herein), has made the following prayer in her claim petition:
It is therefore, most humbly prayed that the claim petition of the petitioner may kindly be accepted and the claim amount Rs. 67,300/ may kindly
be awarded in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents with costs and with interest @24% p.a. from the date of the accident till the
realisation of awarded amount.
The learned Tribunal has misdirected itself while making the award. On account of cost of medicines and other treatment given to
claimant/respondent No.1 during the period in question and the medicines to be taken by her in future, was claimined at Rs. 10,000/, but the
learned Tribunal has awarded her an amount of Rs. 13,000/. She claimed that she was earning Rs. 400/ p.m. by resorting to tattering work, and
could not earn this amount for another six months and sought a compensation of s. 1,800/ on this count. The Tribunal further awarded an amount
of Rs. 30,000/ on account of permanent disability of the claimant, although she had claimed Rs. 20.000/ on this count. She has been awarded Rs.
15,000/ only on account of loss of income. Rs. 20,000/ have been awarded to the claimant for pain, suffering and shock suffered by her as a result
of the accident.
As a matter of fact, while analysing Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, one comes to the conclusion that the discretion given to the
Tribunal to fix the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just, has to be fixed within the amount claimed by a claimant. Basically,
compensation is paid for the losses incurred by a person in an accident, and the claimant is the best assessor for claiming the loss. Even otherwise,
under Torts it is for an aggrieved person to claim a compensation or not to claim compensation; and in case he claims compensation, it is for him to
claim the damages. In case he slashes down his claim, nobody else has the power to enhance the amount of such claim.
There is another reason for following this course. Let us take the present case. When the claim was filed, if the Insurance Company while
appearing before the Tribunal would have stated that they do not want to contest the claim petition, what would have been the effect? The Tribunal
in accordance with the provisions of Section 168 of Motor Vehicles Act, would not have conducted an enquiry, but would have awarded the
amount claimed by the claimant/respondent No. 1. It is only in those cases, where the respondents in the claim petition deny their liability, or take a
stand that the compensation claimed is more than what is required to be paid in accordance with law, that the Tribunals exercise their discretion.
Since, there is no authoritative judgment on the point, it is creating difficulties in day to day working of the Tribunals. Learned counsel for the
respondent No. 1 has brought not my notice an awarded passed by the same Presiding Officer of the Tribunal, who has passed the award
impugned in this appeal. In the instance case, while relying on the judgment of Bombay High Court (supra), the learned Presiding Officer of the
Tribunal has stated that in terms of Section 168 of Motor Vehicles Act, he was not bound by the claim made by the claimant, but he has to fix a
just compensation and therefore, he could award more than what had been claimed. The award brought to my notice has been passed on
30.4.1996 by the same learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal in case titled: Manga Ram vs Pt. Mela Ram and others, photostat copy whereof
has been taken on record. In that case, the same Presiding Officer of the Tribunal has stated that ""looking to the age of the injured, a multiplier of 9
would be appropriate and thus the future loss of earning is assessed at Rs. 1500x12 comes to Rs. 18,000/ annual loss to be multiplied by 9 comes
to Rs. 1,62,000/ totalling Rs. 2,62,000/. But the petitioner has claimed Rs. 2,50,000/ as compensation to which he is found entitled to with 12%
interest.
The second contention of the appellant's counsel is that the interest has been ordered to be paid on whole of the amount, and in this behalf he
has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1995 SC 755, titled: R.D.Hattangadi V/s M/s Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., in
which it has been stated that no interest can be ordered to be paid in respect of the amounts which are claimed for future expenditures. I accept
this argument also, allow this appeal, setaside the award dated: 18.2.1995, and modify the award in accordance with the following terms:
i) That a compensation of Rs. 67,300/only shall be paid to respondent No.1 (claimant). Out of the said amount, interest shall be paid on Rs.
55,000/ only at the rate specified by the Tribunal. Award is modified accordingly. This appeal is accordingly disposed of.