Most. Sonia and ors. Vs. Naresh Sao and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- motor vehicles act, 1988 [c.a. no. 59/1988]section 173(1) proviso; [d. biswas, amitava roy & i.a.ansari, jj] appeal without statutory deposit but within limitation/or extended period of limitation maintainability - held, if the provision of a statute speaks of entertainment of appeal, it denotes that the appeal cannot be admitted to consideration unless other requirements are complied with. the provision of sub-section (1) of section 173 permits filing of an appeal against an award within 90 days with a rider in the first proviso that such appeal filed cannot be entertained unless the statutory deposit is made. the period of limitation is applicable only to the filing of the appeal and not to the deposit to be made. it, therefore, appears that an appeal filed under section 173 cannot be entertained i.e. cannot be admitted for consideration unless the statutory deposit is made and for this purpose the court has the discretion either to grant time to make the deposit or not. no formal order condoning the delay is necessary, an order of adjournment would suffice. the provisions of limitation embodied in the substantive provision of the sub-section (1) of section 173 of the act does not extend to the provision relating to the deposit of statutory amount as embodies in the first proviso. therefore an appeal filed within the period of limitation or within the extended period of limitation, cannot be admitted for hearing on merit unless the statutory deposit is made either with the memo of appeal or on such date as may be permitted by the court. no specific order condoning any delay for the purpose of deposit under first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 173 is necessary. [new india assurance co. ltd. v md. makubur rahman, 1993 (2) glr 430 and new india assurance co. ltd. v smt rita devi, 1997(2) glt 406, approved. new india assurance co. ltd. v birendra mohan de, 1995 (2) gau lt 218 (db) and union of india v smt gita banik, 1996 (2) glt 246, are not good law]. order1. this appeal has been filed by the claimants-appellants for enhancement of compensation awarded by the motor vehicle accident claims tribunal, hazaribagh in claim case no. 49 of 2004 wherein the tribunal has awarded rs. 194,200/-.2. the admitted facts are that the claimants-appellants filed application for grant of compensation of rs. 2,00,000/- for the death of chatur mahto. according to the claim petition chatur mahto while returning to his village on a tractor bearing no. jh 020-1751 met with an accident as a result of which he received grievous injury and died. the claimants' case was that he was earning rs. 2,000/- per month by doing work as a labourer. the tribunal assessed compensation by taking his monthly income as rs. 1,800/- per month. we do not find any error in the findings recorded by the tribunal.3. as noticed above, in the claim petition itself the claimants have stated that the deceased was a male labourer and his daily income was rs. 60/- per day. as against the claim of rs. 2,00,000/- by way of compensation, the tribunal has already awarded rs. 1,94,200/-.4. mr. atanu banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that if multiplier of 15 or 16 would have been taken then the appellants would have been entitled to get more than rs. 2,00,000/-. learned counsel further submitted that the tribunal or the court has got jurisdiction to grant compensation more than compensation claimed in the claim petition. in this regard learned counsel relied upon the decision of a bench of this court in the case of new india assurance co. ltd. v. (most.) sundia devi and ors. 2002 (3) jcr 45. there is no dispute with regard to the legal proposition that the tribunal got jurisdiction to grant compensation more than the amount claimed in the claim petition, if evidence to that effect has been brought on record and only if the claim petition is amended. in the case of nagappa v. gurudayal singh and ors. air 2002 scw 5348 (sc), the supreme court held that enhanced compensation can be claimed by amending the claim petition even at the appellate stage. since the appellants have not amended the claim petition even at the appellate stage nor drawing our attention to the evidence on the basis of which amount of compensation could be enhanced, we have no option, but to hold that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is just and reasonable and as per the claim made by the claimants.5. however, we hold that the compensation amount so awarded by the tribunal shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition.6. we further direct that 25% of the total compensation amount shall deposited in a long-term deposit in the name of the minor child of the deceased.7. with the above observation this appeal is disposed of.

Judgment:
ORDER

1. This appeal has been filed by the claimants-appellants for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Hazaribagh in Claim Case No. 49 of 2004 wherein the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 194,200/-.

2. The admitted facts are that the claimants-appellants filed application for grant of compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- for the death of Chatur Mahto. According to the claim petition Chatur Mahto while returning to his village on a tractor bearing No. JH 020-1751 met with an accident as a result of which he received grievous injury and died. The claimants' case was that he was earning Rs. 2,000/- per month by doing work as a labourer. The Tribunal assessed compensation by taking his monthly income as Rs. 1,800/- per month. We do not find any error in the findings recorded by the Tribunal.

3. As noticed above, in the claim petition itself the claimants have stated that the deceased was a male labourer and his daily income was Rs. 60/- per day. As against the claim of Rs. 2,00,000/- by way of compensation, the Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 1,94,200/-.

4. Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that if multiplier of 15 or 16 would have been taken then the appellants would have been entitled to get more than Rs. 2,00,000/-. Learned Counsel further submitted that the Tribunal or the Court has got jurisdiction to grant compensation more than compensation claimed in the claim petition. In this regard learned Counsel relied upon the decision of a Bench of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. (Most.) Sundia Devi and Ors. 2002 (3) JCR 45. There is no dispute with regard to the legal proposition that the Tribunal got jurisdiction to grant compensation more than the amount claimed in the claim petition, if evidence to that effect has been brought on record and only if the claim petition is amended. In the case of Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh and Ors. AIR 2002 SCW 5348 (SC), the Supreme Court held that enhanced compensation can be claimed by amending the claim petition even at the appellate stage. Since the appellants have not amended the claim petition even at the appellate stage nor drawing our attention to the evidence on the basis of which amount of compensation could be enhanced, we have no option, but to hold that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and as per the claim made by the claimants.

5. However, we hold that the compensation amount so awarded by the Tribunal shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition.

6. we further direct that 25% of the total compensation amount shall deposited in a long-term deposit in the name of the minor child of the deceased.

7. With the above observation this appeal is disposed of.