Amitava Lala, J. - (1.) The claim amount of the claimant before the Tribunal was for Rs. 6,00,000/-. The awarded amount of the Tribunal is Rs. 10,17,200/-. Therefore, it is much higher than the claim amount. Ordinarily such amount cannot be granted. This is the real crux of the case. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant relied upon a Full Bench decision of the Gujarat High Court reported in AIR 2000 Gajarat 211 (Dr.Urmila J. Sangani, v. Pragjibhai Mohanlal Luvana and Ors .) based upon a decision of the Supreme Court in land acquisition case reported in AIR 1996 SC 2777 (Ujjain Vikash Pradhikaran v. Tarachand . held that the Claims Tribunal cannot award more compensation than claimed. However a contra judgement of Division Bench of Bombay High Court was considered therein. Ultimately the Full Bench of Gujarat (supra) held that in view of the discussions, under Section 166 read with Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Section 110B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, it is not open to a Claims Tribunal to award the amount of compensation higher than the amount claimed by the claimant in the claim petition on the ground that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to award just compensation.
(2.) Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant also raised an issue of loss of earning since the injured has been replaced in the service and continued in the same service without any monetary loss.
(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent relied upon a judgement of the Single Bench Judgement of the Andhra Pradesh 1995 (1) TAC 472 (AP) (New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. G. Lakshmi Alias Pentamma and Ors . where it was held relying upon several High Court judgements that legislature has not imposed any embargo on the Tribunals to grant higher compensation over and above the compensation claimed by the parties.;