SUGA BIBI Vs. NIRMAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties. In a motor accident dated 18.2.95 Asgar Ali, Riyazuddin Ansari and Kurban Ali lost their lives. Their dependants preferred three different claim cases, being 69, 70 and 71 of 1995 under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), which were heard together and were disposed of by a common judgment dated 19.9.1998. However, three awards were prepared and, therefore, the present three appeals have been preferred, under section 173 of the said Act. These three appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by common order.

(2.) Admittedly, the aforesaid three deceased persons were passengers of a maxi-taxi (BR 20-P 1045), which turned down, as a result of which, the aforesaid passengers were severely injured and ultimately died. In respect of the said accident, Nirsa P.S. Case No. 35 of 1995, under section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code was registered. It was established in the claim cases in question that accident took place on account of negligence of driver of maxi-taxi and the aforesaid three persons died therein. Driver was possessing valid driving licence and the vehicle being insured, the insurance company, namely, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Dhanbad, was liable to indemnify the liability of the owner of the vehicle in question. Claimants of Claim Case No. 6 of 1995 claimed compensation of Rs. 1,50,000, whereas the claimants of Claim Case No. 70 of 1995 have claimed Rs. 2,50,000 and claimants of Claim Case No. 71 of 1995 claimed Rs. 3,00,000. On the basis of materials on record, Tribunal came to conclusion that Asgar Ali was 55 years old and was employed in Eastern Coalfields Limited and was earning a sum of Rs. 3,475 per month. Annual dependency was, therefore, assessed at Rs. 41,700 and after deducting 1'/3rd thereof towards personal expenses of the deceased and applying multiplier 11, total amount of compensation was assessed at Rs. 3,05,800. Riyazuddin Ansari was 52 years old and he was also employed in Eastern Coalfields Limited and was earning Rs. 3,400 per month. Annual dependency was, therefore, assessed at Rs. 40,800 and after deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenses and applying multiplier of 11, total amount of compensation was assessed at Rs. 2,99,200. In the case of Kurban Ali, it was found that he was 54 years old and was working in Government Block Development Office and was earning Rs. 5,580 per month. Hence, annual dependency was assessed at Rs. 65,960 and after deducting 1/3rd for the personal expenses of the deceased and applying the multiplier of 11, the total amount of compensation was assessed at Rs. 4,77,000. Since the claimants have made claim respectively of Rs. 1,50,000, Rs. 2,50,000 and Rs. 3,00,000 only as compensation, the Tribunal awarded the aforesaid sum. Appellants' grievance in these appeals is that they should have been awarded adequate compensation according to the provisions of the Act, and it could not have been made limited to the amount of compensation asked for. So, the Tribunal committed error in law in not awarding the amount of compensation, as assessed by it, in accordance with law.

(3.) Mr. Akhtar, counsel for claimants-appellants submitted that power or jurisdiction of the Tribunal to award just compensation, includes the power to award amount of compensation higher than the amount claimed by the claimants in the claim petition. It was contended that it is duty of the Claims Tribunal, to pass an award for compensation which appears to be just and, therefore, claim advanced by the claimants in their claim petitions would not preclude the Tribunal from passing an award of higher amount of compensation, though not claimed by the claimants. Mr. Ananda Sen, counsel for respondent No. 2, on the other hand, submitted that claimants for their own reasons limits claim to particular amount. It was for them to estimate amount that they wanted to recover from the defendants. It is true that they could have only estimated the amount of compensation, but then it was open to them to amend the claim petition at any point of time, they sought to enlarge their claim.