JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is directed against the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in the MV OP No.473 of 1990 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Karimnagar. The appellant is the
Insurance Company which insured the vehicle involved in the accident. Respondents 1 to 5 are the petitioners-claimants before the Tribunal and Respondents 6 and 7 are owner and driver of the vehicle involved in the accident. The learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.91,000/- for the death of the deceased-Suthari Chilakamma, who is the wife of Petitioner No. 1 and the mother of Petitioners Nos.2 to 5 in the Tribunal.
2. The appeal is based on a simple question, namely whether the Tribunal was in error in awarding compensation in excess of that claimed in the petition.
3. A perusal of the judgment and Award under appeal would show that the petitioners claimed compensation for a sum of Rs.70,000/-. But, surprisingly, the Award has been passed granting compensation in a sum of Rs.91,000/-.
4. The learned Counsel for the appellant herein Sri K. Subba Rao rightly points out that the compensation could not have been awarded in excess of the claim. It is well known principle that the Court or Tribunal would not award compensation in excess of the claim. At any rate, there is nothing in the judgment of the Tribunal, under what circumstances it thought it fit to award compensation in excess of the amount claimed. If any authority is required to show that the award under the circumstances is erroneous, there is a judgment of the Supreme Court in Adikanda Sethi (dead) through LRs. and another v. Palani Swamy Saran Transports and another, UJ 1997 (2) SC 187, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court after having arrived at the compensation figure at Rs.1,40,000/- restricted the Award only to Rs.1,00,000/- which was the claim made in the petition.
5. The learned Counsel for the appellant further submits that even on
merits also, the compensation figure arrived at by the learned Tribunal cannot be justified. At any rate, it would not exceed the compensation claimed by the petitioner. In view of the above finding, there is no need to go into the merits and to re-ascertain the quantum of compensation inasmuch as the learned Counsel for the appellant concedes that the compensation to the extent claimed in the petition could have been awarded.
6. Under these circumstances, the appeal is allowed. The compensation of Rs.91,000/- awarded by the Tribunal shall stand reduced to Rs.70,000/- with interest on the reduced amount as awarded by the Tribunal with proportionate costs. No costs.