1. By way of this appeal the appellant has challenged judgement and award dated 03.01.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Ahmedabad in M.A.C.P. No. 1626 of 1998 whereby the tribunal has allowed the petition and directed the opponent No.1 and 2 to pay to claimant an amount of Rs. 2,83,000/- with proportionate costs along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of the petition till realization of the award amount.
2. Brief facts of the case are that:
2.1 On 20.10.1998, the petitioner was travelling in Motor car No. G.B.L. 9078 from Ahmedabad to Petlad. The driver of the car was driving with full speed and in negligent manner. He lost control over the car and collided with a tree on the side of the road. The accident took place about 7 k.m. from Keriavi. Resultantly, the petitioner sustained injuries on her right upper limb and got two fractures.
2.2 The petitioner therefore approached Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Ahmedabad by filing M.A.C.P. No. 1626 of 1998 for getting compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/-.
2.3 The tribunal vide judgement and award dated 03.01.2007 has allowed the petition and directed the opponent No.1 and 2 to pay to claimant amount of Rs. 2,83,000/- with proportionate costs along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of the petition till realization of the award amount.
2.4 Being aggrieved by the said judgement and award, present appellant-original opponent No. 2 has approached this court by way of filing this appeal.
3. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the tribunal has erred in awarding Rs. 2,83,000/- against claim of Rs. 1,50,000/-. He further submitted that the tribunal has erred in taking Rs. 15,000/- p.m. as income for computing damages. He stated that the tribunal has erred in adopting multiplier of 10 and that 9% interest awarded by the tribunal is on higher side. He submitted that in any case the amount of award cannot exceed Rs. 1,39,400/-.
4. Counsel for the defendant relying upon the following decisions submitted that the Act itself nowhere lays down that the Tribunal can not grant amount in excess of the amount claimed in the application.
1. Dr. Urmila J. Sangani Vs. Pragjibhai Mohanlal Luvana reported in 2000 ACJ 1125.
2. Laxman Vs. Divisonal Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and anr. Reported in 2012 ACJ 191.
3. In case of Ibrahim Vs. Raju and Ors. Reported in 2011 ACJ 2845 it is stated that under the M.V. Act, there is no restriction that the Tribunal/court cannot award compensation amount exceeding the claimed amount. The function of the Tribunal/Court is to award 'just' compensation which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record.
4. Sanjay Batham Vs. Munnalal Parihar and Ors. reported in 2011 ACJ 2869.
5. Heard counsel for the parties.
6. As a result of hearing and perusal of the record, it is an admitted position that the claim of the claimant was only of Rs. 1,50,000/-. There is no evidence on record to show that the claimant has ever amended the claim petition claiming the higher amount. Though the Act itself nowhere lays down that the Tribunal will not grant any amount in excess of the amount claimed in the application, before awarding higher compensation, a proper notice should be given to the opposite parties to contest the claim even by leading evidence, if necessary. The additional claim should as far as possible be taken in writing which should also indicate the reason why the additional claim is made.
7. In case of Dr. Urmila J. Sangani Vs. Pragjibhai Mohanlal Luvana reported in 2000 ACJ 1125, it is held that if according to the Tribunal, the amount awardable is higher than the amount claimed, the claim petition may be amended and necessary opportunity may be given to the opponents on the enhanced claim.
8. It appears that in the present case, no such procedure is followed. In that view of the matter, the matter is required to be remanded. Accordingly, the impugned judgement and award is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for adjudication as aforesaid. If the claim petition is not amended by the amendment latest by 1st August, 2012, it will be open to the Tribunal to award the compensation as originally claimed in the claim petition. Till the matter is adjudicated and finalized, the amount deposited by the Insurance Company will not be disbursed. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.
[K.S.JHAVERI, J.]
JYOTI