(1.) These appeals are preferred under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellants-claimants in claim petitions filed under Sec. 166 of the Act before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals constituted under Sec. 165 of the Act, challenging the inadequacy of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
(2.) On 8/3/2019, when MACA No.480 of 2012 was taken up for consideration, the learned Standing Counsel for the insurer, namely, the National Insurance Company Ltd., raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the appeal. It was submitted that the appellant-claimant was granted compensation more than what was claimed in the claim petition filed before the Tribunal under Sec. 166 of the Act. It was pointed out that only a sum of Rs.1,00,000.00 was claimed in the claim petition and the Tribunal has granted to the claimant a sum of Rs.1,07,600.00. According to the learned Standing Counsel, the claimant in a case of this nature cannot be treated as a 'person aggrieved', within the meaning of sub- sec. (1) of Sec. 173 of the Act, so as to enable him to prefer an appeal challenging the award passed by the Tribunal, invoking the said provision and that the appeal is, therefore, not maintainable. The decision of the Division Bench in Mithun Subramanian v. Nidhish Eldo Joseph [2017 (3) KHC 710 : 2016 SCC OnLine Ker 41057 : 2018 ACJ 484] was cited by the learned Standing Counsel, in support of the objection raised as to the maintainability of the appeal.
(3.) In the order of reference, the learned Single Judge observed that, in Mithun Subramanian (supra), the Division Bench held that in a case where compensation more than what is claimed in the proceedings has been granted by the Tribunal, the claimant cannot be treated as a 'person aggrieved', within the meaning of sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 173 of the Act and the appeals instituted by the claimants in such cases are not maintainable. Placing reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.9581 of 2018, 11042 of 2018 and 11495 of 2018, the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant submitted that the decision of the Division Bench in Mithun Subramanian (supra) is no longer good law.