Under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 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. Further, in such cases there is no question of claim becoming time-barred or it cannot be contended that by enhancing the claim there would be change of cause of action. It is also to be stated that as provided under sub-section (4) to Section 166, even the report submitted to the Claims Tribunal under sub-section (6) of Section 158 can be treated as an application for compensation under the MV Act. If required, in appropriate cases, the court may permit amendment to the claim petition.”
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No. 8943 OF 2011
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.25372 of 2005)
Ibrahim Vs. Raju and others
G.S. Singhvi, J.
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. Feeling dissatisfied with the enhancement granted by the High Court in the amount of compensation awarded by 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karwar (for short, `the Tribunal’), the appellant has filed this appeal.
4. The appellant sustained serious injuries on the head, nose, back and lower region of abdomen including the pelvic region when the tempo in which he was travelling met with an accident on 23.4.2000. He was taken to Vijayashree Orthopaedic Centre for first aid and was then shifted to Kasturba Hospital, Mani-pal. He remained in the hospital from 23.04.2000 to 05.06.2000.
5. The appellant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, `the Act’) and claimed compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- with interest and cost. He pleaded that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the tempo by its driver Shri Raju; that he had suffered serious injuries in the accident; that he remained in the hospital for almost one month and a half and had to spend more than Rs. 80,000/- towards medical treatment, conveyance and expenses of the attendants; that at the time of accident he was a student of Class 8 and on account of the injuries he was not in a position to continue his studies.
6. The owner and the driver of the offending vehicle, who were impleaded as non-petitioners No. 1 and 2 did not contest the claim of the appellant. However, the National Insurance Company, which was impleaded as non-petitioner No. 3 contested the claim by asserting that the accident was not caused due to rash and negligent driving of the tempo and that the appellant was himself responsible for the accident.
7. Two of the four issues framed by the Tribunal were whether the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the tempo and whether the appellant was entitled to compensation. After analysing the evidence produced by the parties, the Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the tempo. The Tribunal then referred to the statements of Dr. Anil K. Bhat, Assistant Professor of Orthopaedics, who issued disability certificate Exhibit P-140 and Dr. Joseph Thomas, Professor of Urology, who issued treatment certificate Exhibit P-141 (both the doctors were working in Kasturba Medical College and Hospital, Manipal) and awarded compensation to the appellant under the following heads:
