THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA M.A.C.M.A.No.498 of 2006 JUDGMENT: This appeal has been filed by the New Indian Assurance Company aggrieved by the orders dated 5th August,2005 in O.P. No 656 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- IV Additional District Judge, (FTC), Mahabubnagar whereby and whereunder an amount of Rs.1,54,000/- was awarded as against the claim of Rs.1,20,000/-. 2. That on 30th August, 2000 at about 7.30 p.m., the deceased along with his son was returning home along with their goats and sheep and when they were within the village limits of Kakarlapadu, an auto bearing No. AP 22 T-7632 came at high speed in opposite direction driven in rash and negligent manner by its driver and dashed the deceased causing him grievous injuries and he succumbed thereto while undergoing treatment at Government Civil Hospital, Mahabubnagar. A case against auto driver was registered in Crime No.69/2000 for the offence under Section 304-A IPC by the Nawabpet P.S. A.1-wife and A.2 to A.5- sons of the deceased filed the claim petition claiming a total compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- as has already been stated hereinabove. 3. The wife of the deceased has got herself examined as PW.1 besides examining her third son as PW.2 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.4., however, no person was examined on behalf of the respondents therein except marking Ex.B.1 copy of insurance policy. 4. PW.1 who is the wife of the deceased, and PW.2 who is the son of the deceased and who was also an eye witness to the accident have testified that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the auto bearing No.AP22 T-7632 by its driver. Further Ex.A- 1-FIR, A.2-charge sheet, and A.3- P.M.E. report also supported their evidence and since as per Ex.A.4, the auto rickshaw was insured with appellant- New India Assurance Company, the lower Tribunal had awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,54,000/- with interest at 9% per annum. 5. It is contended on behalf of the appellant-New India Assurance Company that though a total compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- was claimed by the respondents, the lower Tribunal was not justified in awarding Rs.1,54,000/- as total compensation, which is in excess of the amount claimed by the respondents. Therefore, the same is liable to be scaled down. It is further contended that the lower Tribunal is also not justified in awarding 9% per annum interest and the same is also liable to be scaled down. It is also contended that the lower Tribunal is also not justified in awarding huge compensation amount of Rs.1,54,000/- as respondents 2 to 5 before the lower Tribunal were all majors. It is further contended that the lower Tribunal was also not justified in awarding excess amount of compensation than the amount claimed by the respondents-claimants and the respondents-claimants did not file any amendment petition seeking enhancement of compensation. It is also contended that the lower Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate which is on higher side. It is also contended that the lower Tribunal has erred in fixing the annual earnings of the deceased at the rate of Rs.18,000/- there being no evidence to that effect. 6. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondents-claimants that the lower Tribunal in the absence of evidence as to the monthly earnings of the deceased has fixed his daily earnings at the rate of Rs.50/-per day and fixed his annual earnings at Rs.18,000/- and deducted 1/3rd therefrom towards personal expenses of the deceased. Accordingly, the annual earnings of the deceased were fixed at 12,000/- per annum and multiplier “11” was applied, thus it has arrived at the figure of Rs.1,32,000/- to which an amount of Rs.10,000/- was awarded towards loss of consortium to the wife and another Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus the lower Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,54,000/- to the respondents-claimants. 7. Heard both sides and perused the material available on record. 8. It is common knowledge that for the sake of doing justice courts have power to award just compensation which could be even little more than the amount claimed by the claimants, suo moto. Therefore, such discretionary power cannot be permitted to be questioned. Now coming to the interest part, the lower Tribunal has awarded 9% per annum on the awarded total compensation amount. However, this court is of the view that the same is liable to be reduced and it is hereby reduced to 7.5% per annum. There is no prohibition in law in awarding compensation in favour of the major sons. Therefore, the lower Tribunal has not committed any error. It is to be seen that the lower Tribunal after considering that there was no evidence or proof to prove the monthly earnings of the deceased, it has fixed Rs.50/- per day as the earnings of the deceased which comes to Rs.18,000/- per annum. It does not appear unreasonable though it is on the higher side when compared to what is provided in II Schedule in the case of non- earning person. In any case, the deceased is proved to be Shepard rearing goats and sheep. It is common knowledge that it is a traditional and flourishing business. Therefore, the deceased cannot be equated with non-earning person and as such the lower Tribunal cannot be found fault in fixing the annual earnings of the deceased at Rs.18,000/- . So far as the amounts awarded under other heads like loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses are concerned, they are quite reasonable and as such the lower Tribunal cannot also be found fault with. 9. In the above facts and circumstances, this court does not find fault with the lower Tribunal in awarding a total compensation of Rs.1,54,000/- as against the total claim of Rs,1,20,000/- by the respondents-claimants. The plea raised in this regard that the lower Tribunal has awarded excessive compensation amount than the amount claimed without there being a petition seeking enhancement of compensation amount, cannot be sustainable as the court is expected to award just compensation and for that purpose it can also award more amount than the amount claimed by the claimants in order to do justice. Therefore, the court can exercise its discretionary powers in deserving cases, suo moto, and the same cannot be questioned. 10. In the result, the appeal is accordingly disposed of. However, the rate of interest is reduced to 7.5% per annum from 9% per annum, from the date of the petition till realisation. _________________ B.N. RAO NALLA, J Date: 21.07.2011 Stp