NAGAPPA versus GURUDAYAL SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 499 · Decided: 03-12-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

NAGAPPA 
A 
> 
GU RUDA YAL SINGH AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 3, 2002 
[M.B. SHAH, B.P. SINGH AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.) 
B 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988/Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989: 
Motor accident-Injury requiring recurring medical expenses-
Compensation-Payment of in instalments for future eventualities- C 
Permissibility-Held, the Act does not provide for passing further award after 
final award is passed-Hence while passing final award Court should consider 
future eventualities and fix compensation accordingly-Future medical 
expenses can be determined only on the basis of fair guess work after taking 
into account increase in the cost of medical treatment. 
Sections 158(6) and 166(4)/Rule 254-Award of compensation amount 
exceeding claimed amount-Permissibility of-Held, in appropriate cases, 
Court may permit amendment to the claim petition-Code of Civil Procedure, 
1908-0rder 6, Rule 17. 
D 
E 
Appellant-a poor agriculturist met with an accident suffered injuries 
including injury resulting in amputation of his right foot. He was required to 
change the artificial leg once in two to three years. Appellant along with other 
injured persons filed claim application for a sum ofRs.l lakh. The claims 
tribunal passed an award granting compensation. Against the award appellant 
preferred an appeal before High Court whereby it enhanced the compensation F 
and further awarded a sum for purchase of artificial leg. 
In appeal to this Court, during course of hearing, appellant filed an 
application seeking permission to amend the claim petition for enhancement 
of the claim to Rs.5 Iakhs. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. Under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, there is 
G 
no restriction that compensation could be awarded only up to the amount 
claimed by the claimant. In an appropriate case where from the evidence H 
499 
500 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A brought on record if Tribunal/Court considers that claimant is entitled to get 
more compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass such award. Only 
embarg" is-it should be 'just' compensation, that is to say, it should be neither 
arbitrary, fanciful nor unjustifiable from the evidence. Claims Tribunal in 
appropriate case can treat the report forwarded to it under Section 158(6) of 
B Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as an application for compensation even though no 
such claim is made or no specified amount is claimed. Further, in such cases 
there is no question of claim becoming time barred or it cannot be contended 
that by enhancing the claim there would be change of cause of action. As 
provided under.Section 166(4), even report submitted to the Claims Tribunal 
under Section 158(6) can be treated as an application for compensation under 
C the Motor Vehicles Act. If required, in appropriate cases, Court may permit 
amendment to the Claim Petition. (508-F, G) 
1.2. Rule 254 ofKarnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 inter alia makes 
specific provision that Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is applicable to such 
proceedings. In this view of the matter, in an appropriate case, depending upon 
D the facts and the evidence and in the interest of justice, Court may permit 
amendment of claim petition so as to award enhanced compensation. Further, 
fQr amendment of.the pleadings, unless it causes injustice to other side or it 
is not necessary for the purpose of determining real issue between the parties, 
Court would grant amendment, it is also to be stated ·that under the Act there 
E 
is no time limit prescribed for claiming compensation. Therefore, there is no 
question of enhanced claim being barred by limitation. (505-G, H; 506-A) 
F 
G 
1.3. It is for the Tribunal to determine just compensation from the 
evidence which is brought on record despite the fact that claimant has not 
precisely stated the amount of damages of compensation which he is entitled 
to .. If evidence on record justifies passing of such award, the claim cannot be 
rejected solely on the ground that claimant has restricted his claim. Form 63 
of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, which is for filing an application 
for compensation, does not provide that claimant should specify ,his claim 
amount. (506-D. E) 
1.4. In case, where there is evidence on record justifying the enhanced 
compensation for the medical treatment which is required because of the 
injury caused to a claimant due to the accident, there is no reason why such 
amendment or enhanced compensation should not be

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.