Jogendra Singh and Another vs Suresh Manjulapur and Others

This appeal is posted for consideration of I.A. No. II for vacating stay and with the consent of the parties, the appeal is taken up for final disposal.

The appellant is the Insurance Company in this Court in this appeal. The respondent filed a claim petition, seeking compensation of Rs. 1,31,500 for the death of one Kotrappa Manjulapur in a road accident. The matter was contested. The Tribunal has allowed the application and has awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000.00 with interest at 12% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. The said order is challenged in this appeal by the Insurance Company and the owner.

I have heard the learned Counsel on either side. Sri S.P. Shankar, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal cannot grant compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs in this case in view of the restricted claim of Rs. 1,35,500.00 by the claimant in the claim petition.

4.Per contra, Sri Vigneswar S. Shastry, learned Counsel for the respondent contended that the Tribunal on evidence found that the compensation awarded is just and proper. After hearing the learned Counsel on both the sides I pass the following order.

Recently I had an occasion to deal with an identical case in Narayana and Another v H.R. Mohankumar, 2001(1) Kar. L.J. 244. After referring to various case-laws, I have ruled in the said judgment that in appropriate cases the Tribunal can grant compensation much in excess of what is claimed in the claim petition. This is what I have stated in paragraphs 16 and 17 of the judgment.-

"16. In the case on hand, following a judgment of this Court in Smt. Hanumakka v Bipin Bai, 1998(1) Kar. L.J. 116, the Tribunal has rightly ruled that the respondent is entitled for Rs. 2,00,000/- as against Rs. 1,10,000/-. But the subsequent judgment in H.J. Girish v Smt. Sarojamma alias Jaitunbi, ILR 1999 Kar. 4333, this Court has ruled on the facts of that case that the claimant cannot get more than what is claimed by him in the claim petition. This case of this Court is clearly distinguishable on facts. In Girish''s case, supra, the Court was not concerned with regard to the power of review and the enhancement by way of review. Therefore, that case also cannot come in the way of the petitioner getting the enhanced compensation. Therefore, it cannot be said that the claim is to be restricted to the claim made in the claim petition only. In fact, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has given cogent and categorical reasoning for granting a higher compensation than what is claimed in the claim petition (Ref. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v Kisan Gangaram Hire, 1987 ACJ 311 (Bom.)). The same has been followed by this Court in Hanumakka''s case, supra. I respectfully follow the judgment in Hanumakka''s case, supra and hold that the Tribunal is justified in granting the compensation. Moreover, in the case on hand, since I have already allowed the amendment application, the claim also gets amended to that extent. Therefore, in the case on hand, there is no difficulty in accepting the order of the Tribunal on the facts and circumstances of this case. I hold that in appropriate cases the Court can certainly grant such compensation as it deems fit in terms of statute even where the claim petition is one of restricted claims.

In the circumstances, I hold that the Tribunals have the trappings of a Civil Court and has power and jurisdiction to review its order. I further hold that the Tribunal in appropriate cases can grant compensation much in excess than what is claimed in the claim petition. This finding of mine is in the light of the object of the Act and in wiping the tears of the injured/dependents suffering on account of an actionable claim under the Motor Vehicles Act".

In these circumstances, I have no hesitation in holding that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to grant much in excess of what is claimed in given circumstances. In the case, the respondent-claimant has made out a case for enhancement before the Tribunal. Therefore, the contention of the Insurance Company has to be rejected in the light of my judgment.

The Tribunal has granted a total compensation of Rs. 2[2,34,000/-.] The Tribunal has granted the following amount:

Loss of dependency Rs. 1,49,000.00

Loss of estate Rs. 10,000.00

Medical expenses Rs. 15,000.00

Loss on consortium to claimant Rs. 10,000.00

Loss of love and affection to claimants 1 and 3 to 10 Rs. 10,000.00

Transportation of the injured and funeral expenses Rs. 5,700.00

--------------------Rs. 3[2,00,034.00]--------------------

After hearing the learned Counsel I do not find any ground to interfere with regard to Rs. 1,39,334/- towards the loss of dependency. The Tribunal has taken Rs. 1,500/- as the earnings and the Tribunal has adopted multiplier 13 in this case. In addition, the Tribunal has also given a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as personal expenditure. Therefore, Rs. 1,34,334/- cannot be said to be an excessive compensation on the facts of this case. The Tribunal has granted Rs. 10,000/- towards the loss of estate but I deem it proper to reduce it to as Rs. 5,000/-. Similarly the medical expenses also is restricted to Rs. 3,000/-. Insofar as the loss of consortium is concerned the sum of Rs. 10,000/- is reduced into Rs. 5,000/- and also towards the love and affection the compensation is reduced to Rs. 5,000/- and the transportation of the injured and funeral expenses concerned the sum of Rs. 5,000/- is reduced into Rs. 3,500/-. Therefore, another sum of Rs. 10,000/- is granted for suffering for two years. Thus a total compensation of Rs. 1,80,000 is granted instead of Rs. 2,34,000/-. The Tribunal has granted 12% interest from the date of petition till the date of payment. The petitioner is granted Rs. 1,80,000/- with 9% interest from the date of petition till the date of payment instead of 12%. The Insurance Company has already deposited the entire amount. Now in view of my order if the Insurance Company has deposited the entire amount, the Insurance Company is directed to calculate the amount payable and if on such calculation if it is found that any further sum is payable, the same may be paid by the Insurance Company. On the other hand, if it is found that the amount already deposited is in excess in terms of this order, the Insurance Company is entitled to seek refund of the excess amount. The appeal is allowed in the above terms.