Goga vs Nand Gopal and Others

The appellant was twelve years of a( when he suffered an injury which total disfigured and disabled his left arm below the elbow joint. This

disablement was permanent. As per the doctor, who appeared as a witness the appellant's injury was such that it was not possible for him to open

his palm. He had lost grip to move it forward and backward. The opinion expressed was that his arm has become totally functionless. The Tribunal

came to the conclusion that an amount of Rs. 50,000/ by way of compensation was a reasonable figure. The total amount of compensation to

which the appellant was legally held entitled to was found to be Rs. 86,000/. This was divided as under:

Compensation for pain, suffering and shock: Rs. 10,000/

Compensation for disfiguration: Rs. 25,000/

Compensation for loss of amenities of life such as loss of prospects of marriage : Rs. 5,000/

Compensation for injuries : Rs. 50,000/

Even though, the above opinion was expressed by the Tribunal, the total amount which was awarded to the appellant was at Rs. 46,000/. This

was the amount claimed by him in the application seeking compensation. Thus, even though, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the amount

which could be legally awarded was much more but as the claimant had restricted his claim to only Rs. 46,000/, only that much amount was

allowed as compensation, the appellant challenged this award in this court. The appeal was dismissed holding that the view expressed by the

Tribunal calls for no interference. Not satisfied with that, the appellant preferred this Letters Patent Appeal.

The learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that if the appellantclaimant restricts his claim to a particular figure, then the

compensation has necessarily to be fixed as per the claim projected by the claimant. Thus, what is urged is that the claimant is bound by the facts

and figures given by him visavis amount of claim and the Tribunal cannot fix a figure which would be the amount so assessed.

The short question which is thus required to be seen at the out set is as to whether the Tribunal dealing with such matters has the requisite

jurisdiction to award an amount which is more that what is claimed. The fact that the appellant was a minor at the time when the claim was made, is

being projected. It is stated that if the interest of minor is not properly taken care of by his guardian, then it was the duty of the Tribunal to not to

ignore this aspect of the matter.

The question as to whether the appellant is justified in this submission of his, be examined at the first stage.

It be seen that under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the Tribunal is to make an award

determining the amount of compensation which appears to be just. The word ""just compensation"" was construed by the Supreme Court of India in

the case of 'State of Gujarat Vs. Shantilal Mangaldas, AIR 1969 SC 634. It was interpreted to mean anything given to make things equivalent; a

thing given to or to make amends for loss, recompense, remuneration or pay. Relying upon this decision, the learned counsel appearing for

appellant has argued that just compensation would mean the compensation to which a claimant becomes entitled to. Merely because the claim for a

lesser amount is made, should not come in the way of the Tribunal in awarding more than the amount which was actually claimed.

The above question has been considered by various High Courts. It was directly considered in the case reported as Surjit Singh Vs. Waryam

Singh and Anr, 1994 ACJ 505. In para 23, it was observed that when the Act nowhere enjoins upon the claimant to specify the amount of

compensation, then it follows that the Tribunal is not powerless in making an award even in excess of the compensation claimed. The fact that the

claim of compensation is not make dependent upon amount of court fee was taken note of. It was accordingly observed that the court while

granting compensation should not succumb to niceties, technicalities and mystics in the matter of granting genuine and just claims. Reference was

made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of N. K. V. Bros (P) Ltd V. M. Karumai Ammal, 1980 ACJ 435 (SC). The Rajasthan

High Court in the case of Dayali Bai and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, 1993 ACJ 1211 expressed a view that there is no

prohibition in the matter of granting compensation which is more than that claimed if this is just and proper. Reliance was placed on a decision

reported as Sheikhupura Transport Co. Ltd. Vs. Northern India Transporters Insurance Co. 1971 ACJ 206 (SC), wherein their Lordships of the

Supreme Court observed that the Tribunal is required to fix such compensation which appears to be just. It was observed that the powers which

are conferred on the Tribunal are wide enough. In Jai Singh Vs. N. A. Subramaniam, 1983 ACJ 1 (P and H), the Full Bench of Punjab and

Haryana High Court observed that in order to do justice, a Tribunal has inherent powers to apply all or any provisions of the Civil Procedure Code

and the principles of justice, equity and good conscience including an amendment of original petition. In Kela Devi Vs. Ram Chand, 1986 ACJ

818 (Delhi), the amount of compensation was claimed at Rs. 50.000/. The just compensation was found at Rs. 1.51.144/. This was allowed. In

Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Kisan Gangaram Hire, 1987 ACJ 311 (Bombay), a Division Bench of Bombay High Court

observed that the Tribunal has power to award compensation in excess of the amount claimed in the claim petition. Taking note of the

aforementioned decisions, the Rajasthan High Court held in no uncertain terms that nothing prevents the Tribunal in awarding compensation which

is more than that claimed by the claimant. The Madras High Court in the case reported as Hastimal Vs. A. Arjunan, 1992 ACJ 762 observed that

compensation can be more than that claimed by the claimant. This was a case arising under workmen Compensation Act of 1923. In New India

Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rambhabai, 1991 ACJ 306, it was observed that the compensation which falls below the minimum compensation cannot

be accepted as just compensation.

A perusal of the aforementioned authorities makes it apparent:

i) that the requirement of law is to award just compensation;

ii) that merely because a claimant has fixed a particular amount by way of compensation but just compensation appears to be more than what is

claimed by him, then it would the duty of the court or the Tribunal to see to it that what is awarded to the claimant, is infact, just compensation and

not that what is demanded by him;

iii) that there is inherent power with the Tribunal to resort to the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure and permit the parties to amend their

pleadings. If this can be done, then there should be no impediment in the grant of higher amount of compensation.

If above be the situation, then two alternatives are available with the Court. One is to remand the matter back to the Tribunal to enable the

parties to amend their pleadings and directing the Tribunal to decide the matter afresh and the other is to take notice of the evidence which has

already come on the record and with a view to cut short the litigation, determine the amount of compensation at this stage only.

We are of the opinion that it would be just and proper to go into the question regarding just compensation payable to the appellant at this stage

only. The accident in this took place more than twelve years back. Interests of justice would be defeated if the parties are again directed to start

the case denovo.

To be fair to the counsel appearing for the respondentCompany, it would be apt to refer to the decision on which reliance has been placed by

him. On the basis of decision reported as Adlkanda Sethi Vs. Palani Swami Saran Transports, (1997)5 SCC 435, it is submitted that

compensation cannot be more than what was claimed by the entitled to Rs. 1.40 lakhs. The claimant had limited the claim to Rs. one lakh. Only

this much amount was allowed by the Supreme Court of India. The question as to whether the Tribunal had the power to give enhanced

compensation, was not gone into at all. Therefore, the above decision cannot be relied upon for the proposition that the Tribunal in no

circumstances can grant compensation then what is claimed. There is another aspect of the matter. The accident took place on 2nd Aug' 86. The

appellant was a minor at that time. He was twelve years of age. The decision was given by the Tribunal on 19th Nov' 92. This was challenged by

preferring an appeal in this court. The appeal was preferred on 11th March'93. This appeal came to be dismissed on 5th May'93. This appeal was

preferred by the minor in his own right. The plea taken by him was that he should be granted just compensation. Thus, on attaining majority and

age of reason"", the appellant put across the case which should have been properly put across by his guardian. This he was competent to do.

Therefore, the minor having exercised an option on attaining majority to seek higher amount of compensation, he cannot be deprived of the same.

This additional factor, therefore, cannot be ignored in recording a finding as to whether the appellant was well within his rights to claim just

compensation as should have been granted to him. Thus, this additional reason is also good enough to enable this Court to reappreciate the

quantum of compensation. This has to be done on the basis of the evidence which has already come on the record.

The appellant has suffered a crush injury on his left arm. He cannot move his hand. As a matter of fact, there is total disability so far as the

control as to the movement of his left hand is concerned. The question arises as to what should be the just compensation in these circumstances.

In Mohanbhai Gemabhai Vs. B. lubhai Savjibnai, 1994 ACJ 260, the function of the right arm stood restricted and reduced to the extent of 50

percent resulting in permanent partial disablement of 1 per cent. The injured was not able to lift and carry heavy weight. This disablement he was to

experience formed pursuits of life. The total compensation which was allowed as around Rs. 90,000/. In Dr. Naresh Chendra Vs. Haryana State,

1995 ACJ 987, there was compound fracture and facerated wound resulting in partial stiffness of right elbow joint and weakness in right hand.

There was a permanent disability of 30 per cent. The amount of compensation was fixed at Rs. One lakh. In another case reported as Ravinder

Singh v/s Jatinder Singh, 1994 ACJ 48, the injury to a child student which incapacitated his right arm, the compensation was filed at Rs. 70,000/.

In the present case, the Tribunal concluded that the compensation amount could be fixed around Rs. 86,000, but restricted the claim to Rs.

46,000/ only because this was the amount so claimed. The fact that the appellant has suffered pain, suffering shock, disfiguration and also loss of

prospect of marriage were all taken note of in assessing the amount of compensation at Rs. 86.000/.

We are of the opinion that the assessment so made by the Tribunal requires to be upheld. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The appellant is

held entitled to compensation to the sum of Rs. 86,000/ as assessed by the Tribunal. On the amount so enhanced, the appellant would also be

entitled to interest. The rate of interest is fixed at 12 per cent.

Disposed of accordingly.