S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the appellant-New India Assurance Co. Ltd, (Company for short) against the judgment dated 18th February, 1998 passed by the learned Single Judge in Misc. Appeal No. 81 of 1994(R).
(2.) , The applicants Most. Sundia Devi and others filed claim for compensation of Rs. 4 lacs before the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Bokaro at Chas on the death of her husband Sudan Teli. Her case was that the (deceased) Sudan Teli while coming on his Hero Honda motor cycle on 9th July, 1991 at about 6.15 p.m. and reached near the Gate of I.O.L. at Village Salagadih, a Maruti van bearing No. DNJ-2640 being run rashly coming from Dhanbad side dashed the motor cycle due to which the motor cycle was damaged, Sudan Teli was thrown on the road and succumbed to serious injury while taken to the hospital. The case was registered as Title (M.V.) Suit No. 105/1991. In the said case, the learned Additional District Judge, Bokaro taking into consideration the status of the deceased Sudan Teli that he was a Khalasi in B.S.L. and aged about 30 years, assessed the total compensation, including consortium for Rs. 7 lacs to be paid by the Insurer-Company, vide judgment dated 21st February, 1994/award dated 4th March, 1994. The Insurer-Company being not satisfied preferred Misc. Appeal No. 81 of 1994(R). It was pleaded that the Tribunal committed error of law in applying the multiplier of 28. A recent judgment of Supreme Court was referred to suggest that the multiplier method should be a maximum of 18 years. The learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment dated 18th February, 1998 on appreciation of all facts, evidence and submissions of the parties himself calculated the compensation and held that 16 should be the proper multiplier. On such calculation, adding the consortium of the widow, shock, etc., brought down the compensation from Rs. 7 lacs to Rs. 5,50,000/- as 'just' compensation in favour of the claimants. In the present appeal, the Counsel for the appellant Insurance Company raised only question as to whether the Tribunal or the learned Single Judge had jurisdiction to allow more compensation than the compensation claimed for by the claimants.
(3.) THE Counsel for the appellant relied on this Court's decision in Most. Suga Bibi v. Sardar Nirtnal Singh reported in II (2001) ACC 357 : 2001 (1) JLJR 161. In the said case, the learned Single Judge referring on Sections 166 and 168 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, held that it was not open to the Claims Tribunal to award the amount of compensation higher than the amount claimed by the claimants. Where the claimant feels that he is entitled to more compensation than that claimed in the petition, it is always open to him to amend the claim petition and the Tribunal should allow amendment if the same is in consonance with equity, justice and good conscience.;