1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01.07.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.1191 of 2011 1.P.Murugeswari 2.Minor Kaliraj 3.Minor Harihara Sudan 4.Mookammal 5.Guru [Minors 2, 3 are up through their mother and next friend the 1st petitioner] ..Petitioners/Petitioners 1 to 5 -Vs- 1.D.Jeyasingh 2.United India Insurance Co, Ltd., through its Divisional Manager, 91, Kamaraja Salai, Madurai-9. ..Respondents/Respondents 1 & 2 PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to modify the order dated 08.11.2010 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1981 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/I Additional District Judge, Madurai by fixing the total compensation amount payable to the petitioners at Rs.6,57,000/- and issue appriopriate orders. For Petitioners :Mr.R.Aravindan For R-2 :Mr.V.R.Subramaniam *** O R D E R The revision has been filed by the claimant, aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal restricting the compensation to Rs.5,00,000/-, even though the Tribunal came to the conclusion the petitioners are entitled to Rs.6,57,000/-. 2.Heard Mr.R.Aravindan learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.V.R.Subramaniam learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company. The first respondent/owner remained ex-parte in the main MCOP itself before the Tribunal and therefore, notice to the first respondent/owner is dispensed with. 3.The Original Main Petition was filed for compensation for the death of first petitioner's husband in a road accident which occurred on 31.08.2006. Claim petition filed by the petitioner was disposed fixing the negligence on the driver of the offending vehicle and awarding a sum https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 of Rs.5,00,000/-. There is no appeal filed by the 2nd respondent / Insurance Company with regard to the liability as well as the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and therefore, the award attained finality as far as Insurance Company is concerned. However, the petitioners are aggrieved only with regard to the manner in which the Tribunal exercised its jurisdiction while awarding compensation and therefore, the present revision has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for not exercising its jurisdiction properly. 4.Mr.R.Aravindan, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that based on the evidence available on record, the Tribunal determined the compensation at Rs.6,57,000/- and however, it restricted the same to Rs.5,00,000/- as the petitioners claimed compensation in the Original Petition only to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is no bar for the Tribunal to award more amount than what is claimed in the main petition, when there is abundant evidence available on record to grant more compensation. Therefore, he seeks for modification of the award passed by the Tribunal with regard to the compensation from Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.6,57,000/-. 5.On the other hand, Mr.V.R.Subramaniam, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent / Insurance Company questioned the maintainability of the revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, especially, when the petitioners have got the appellate remedy for enhancement of compensation. Secondly, he submitted that the salary certificate-Ex.P.6 was not proved as per law and therefore, that the determination based on the said salary certificate cannot be sustained. 6.Heard the parties. Records were called for from the lower Court and perused. With regard to the maintainability of the revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, it is well-settled law that when the Subordinate Court / Tribunal failed to exercise its jurisdiction or assumed its jurisdiction which it lacks, this Court can correct the error. 7.In this case, the Tribunal based on evidence came to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.6,57,000/- in the following manner: (1) towards loss of dependency Rs.6,12,000/- (2) towards consortium to the first petitioner Rs. 20,000/- (3) towards loss of love and affection to the 2 & 3 petitioners (Rs.10,000/- x 2) Rs. 20,000/- (4) towards transportation Rs. 2,000/- (5) towards funeral charges Rs. 3,000/- -------------- Total Rs.6,57,000/- -------------- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 However, the Tribunal restricted compensation only to Rs.5,00,000/- as the petitioners have only prayed for Rs.5,00,000/-. The restriction of Rs.5,00,000/- even though the Tribunal determined the compensation at Rs.6,57,000/- is a failure on the part of the tribunal to exercise the jurisdiction vested with it properly. What is to be determined is only just compensation and the Tribunal is not strictly bound by rigid rule of pleading and evidence. The Judgment in Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh reported in 2004(2) TN MAC 398 (SC) : 2003(2) SCC 274 and National Insurance Company Limited vs. Saroj and others reported in 2009(1) TN MAC 619 (SC); and Clara Vs. T.Harendranath reported in 2007(1) MLJ 600 held that the tribunal has got powers to award more amount than claimed by the claimants. 8.Moreover, Motor vehicles Act is a beneficial piece of legislation and it enables the victims and the dependants of the victim to get a just compensation. Therefore, for not exercising the jurisdiction vested with the Tribunal as stated above, the revision has been rightly filed by the petitioner and the same is maintainable. In view of that, the objection regarding maintainability of the revision is rejected. The restriction of compensation to Rs.5,00,000/- when the Tribunal determined at Rs.6,57,000/- is an error apparent on the face of the record, which is required to be corrected under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9.The contention of the second respondent is that Ex.P.6, salary certificate was not proved as per law. It is seen from the said Exhibit that the said Ex.P.6 was issued by the Executive Officer, Thirunagar Panchayat and the said document was marked through the first claimant, the wife of the deceased, who is competent to speak about the document/salary certificate. After all, the first claimant is the wife of the deceased and she has got every right and competency to speak about the document and the said salary of the deceased Ex.P-6 was rightly proved by P.W.1. The said contention is also not sustainable. 10.There is scope for further enhancement beyond Rs.6,57,000/- as certain amounts were not properly given by the Tribunal. However, this Court is not venturing into re-appreciation of the evidence as done in the appeal. Considering the limited scope of revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court restricts only with regard to modification of the award from Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.6,57,000/-. Based on the evidence on record, the tribunal rightly determined the compensation as stated above at Rs.6,57,000/- under various heads rightly and the petitioners are entitled to Rs.6,57,000/-. Accordingly, the award of compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- granted by the tribunal is modified as RS.6,57,000/-. 11.The Tribunal awarded interest at the rate of 7.5% and said rate of interest will be applicable to the enhanced amount from the date of the main petition. 12.Mr.V.R.Subramaniam learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that Rs.5,00,000/- was already deposited before the Tribunal and seeks time six weeks to deposit the balance amount of Rs.1,57,000/- along with interest as per the order of this Court and accordingly six weeks time is granted for deposit. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 13.On such deposit, the Tribunal is directed to pay the amount to the claimants except remaining interest within a period of two weeks thereafter. 14.The Civil Revision Petition is allowed as prayed for. No costs. skn Sd/- Assistant Registrar[AS] /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The I Additional District Judge/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Madurai. +1 cc to Mr.Aravindan, Advocate SR.No.21087. +1 cc to Mr.VR.Subramanian, ADvocate SR.No.21065. C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.1191 of 2011 Dated:01.07.2011 4P/4C RPB 18.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/