IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1931 MACA.No. 2337 of 2007 ----------------------- OPMV.1764/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANTS/ PETITIONERS: -------------------------- 1. BEEVIKUNJI, AGED 74 YEARS, M/O.DECEASED MOHAMMED RAGEEQ, MULAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O.MATHILAKAM, KODUNGALLUR. 2. MOHAMMED ASHARAF, AGED 53 YEARS, B/O.DECEASED, -DO-, -DO-. 3. MOHAMMED BASHEER, AGED 47 YEARS, B/O.DECEASED, -DO-. 4. AMINAKUTTY, AGED 42 YEARS, SIS/O.DECEASED, -DO-, -DO-. 5. HAFSABI, AGED 40 YEARS, SIS/O. DECEASED, -DO-. 6. MOHAMMED ANSARI, AGED 38 YEARS, B/O.DECEASED, -DO-. 7. SULAIKA, AGED 36 YEARS, SIS/O. DECEASED, -DO-. 8. ARIFA, AGED 34 YEARS, SIS/O. DECEASED, -DO-. 9. VAHEEDA, AGED 32 YEARS, B/O.DECEASED, -DO-. BY ADV. SMT.JEENA JOSEPH SRI.G.D.PANICKER MACA.No. 2337 of 2007 RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. SUBRAMANIAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, KOLIKKOTT HOUSE, KAIPAMANGALAM, KOORIKKUZHI, THRICHUR DISTRICT. 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, ALANGADAN BUILDING, TANA, IRINJALAKUDA. R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. ............................................................................... M.A.C.A. No. 2337 OF 2007 ......................................................................... Dated this the 17th November, 2009 J U D G M E N T P.R. Raman, J: Appellants are the petitioners in O.P.(MV)No.1764 of 2001 of M.A.C.T., Irinjalakkuda. Originally, the application was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Subsequently it was amended as one under Section 163A of the Act. The appellants are the legal heirs of the deceased Muhammed Rafeeq, who was aged 26 years. While he was riding his motor cycle bearing registration No.KL-8/B-9290 on 21.07.2001, through Thriprayar-Kodungallur public road from north to south, another motor cycle bearing registration No.KL-8/E-5664, owned and driven by the first respondent, came in a rash and negligent manner from the opposite side hit the motor cycle ridden by the deceased . As a result of which, he fell down, sustained serious injuries and succumbed to injuries. It is claimed that the deceased was having monthly income of Rs.3000/- per month. An amount of Rs.Two lakhs was claimed under different heads as total compensation. M.A.C.A. No. 2337 OF 2007 2 2. The Tribunal found that the accident was as a result of negligent driving of the offending vehicle from the opposite side. It also found that the second respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. Coming to the quantum of the amount to be awarded, the Tribunal found that though the appellants are entitled for an amount of Rs.2,20,500/-, it was limited to Rs. Two lakhs, since only Rs.Two lakhs was claimed as compensation in the claim petition. Interest was awarded at the rate of 6%. 3. Ms. Jeena Joseph, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants contended that even though the amount claimed is only Rs.2 lakhs, since the Tribunal found that 'just' compensation payable is more than what is claimed, there is no bar for the Tribunal in awarding 'just; compensation. Reliance is placed on the decision reported in 2007(3) KLT S.N. 58 (C.No.74)Cal. (National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Tara Sundari Devi), wherein it was held as follows: “The variable factor on which the quantum of compensation is fixed depends upon the M.A.C.A. No. 2337 OF 2007 3 adjudication of income vis-a-vis the age of the victim and other relevant factors. Hence, it appears that in a claim application it is not possible to identify the exact amount of compensation. Further more, as the proceeding in the compensation case is not conducted following the Civil Procedure Code strictly, the concept of making necessary prayer and limitation of adjudication on the basis of such prayer is totally absent. The Apex Court also considered the issue on legal impact of S.168 aforesaid vis-a-vis the responsibility of the court to pass 'just' compensation . The word 'just' as appearing in the statute was judicially defined by holding that on the basis of the evidence on record whatever amount would be just and proper, the Court of law should award the compensation to that effect irrespective of the fact whether in a claim application such amount was prayed for or not.” 4. Following the above decision, we find that for awarding 'just' compensation, the claim for a lesser amount need not detract this Court in awarding such amount, subject to the liability of the claimant to pay Court fee thereon. Accordingly, we M.A.C.A. No. 2337 OF 2007 4 modify the award by granting an additional compensation of Rs.20,500/- (Rupees twenty thousand and five hundred only) also as compensation payable to the appellants. This will carry interest at the rate of 7% per annum. Taking note of the fact that this is a death case and the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is only 6%, we fix the rate of interest at 7% per annum on the entire amount awarded by the Tribunal. Proportionate Court fee on the additional compensation of Rs.20,500/-, awarded by this Court, shall be paid by the petitioner within one month, failing which, the said amount shall be deducted from the deposit made by the Insurance Company. The compensation thus awarded, as above, along with the interest at the rate of 7% shall be paid within a period of two months. P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk