Hyderabad: Motor vehicle tribunal can hike damages

Hyderabad: A larger bench of the Hyderabad High Court has held that the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) has powers to award compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act over and above the amount claimed by claimants.

Earlier, a division bench of this court in the Pidigala Linga Reddy and others vs Satla Srinivas took the view that the court can grant compensation exceeding the claim amount subject to payment of court fee, if any, payable. Another division bench of this court in the New India Assurance Company vs Chintnala took exactly the opposite view holding that the Tribunal/Court is not empowered to award higher compensation than the compensation claimed by the claimants.

In this backdrop the Chief Justice of the High Court referred the matter to a larger bench on June 28, 2002 to decide the question of law whether the tribunal has powers to award more compensation than what is claimed by the victims of road accidents or not.

When the matter is pending before this court, the very same question came to the consideration of the Supreme Court in Nagappa vs Gurudayal Singh and others and the question was answered in the affirmative holding that in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, there was no restriction that compensation could be awarded only up to the amount claimed by the claimant.

While answering the question in the affirmative, the SC observed that "the tribunal has powers to award more compensation than what is claimed by the claimants, but the only limitation is that it should be just, that is, it should be neither arbitrary nor unjustifiable."

A larger bench comprising acting Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale, Justice R Subhash Reddy, Justice K.C. Bhanu, Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao and Justice P.V. Sanjay Kumar while considering the SC order ruled that the law declared by the division bench in Chintnala case stands overruled.

A PIL has been moved before the Hyderabad High Court by P. Pulla Rao, a social activist of Polavaram village in West Godavari district seeking a direction to the authorities to initiate land acquisition for the Indira Sagar (Polavaram) Multipurpose Irrigation Project afresh in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

He submitted that the 2013 Act provides for social impact assessment with participation of project affected families before going ahead with land acquisition.

He told the court that inhabitants of project affected areas are entitled to the substantive rights provided to them in the 2013 Act in view of the several benevolent provisions contained in it. The old Relief and Resettlement package offered by the government is not scientific and no proper provision was given to the self employed, fishermen, artisans and craftsmen.

He contended that the substantive rights of the inhabitants will be rendered null if the Act of 2013 is not implemented. He alleged that the Andhra Pradesh government was illegally interfering in the construction of the Polavaram irrigation project as the latter was declared a national project as per the AP Reorganisation Act, 2014.

He urged the court to direct the AP government to hand over the project to the Union ministry of water resources for early implementation, including the process of land acquisition and payment of compensation. Earlier, Pulla Rao went to the Supreme Court and had to withdraw his SLP as the apex court asked him to approach the HC.