1. Motor accident claim — Compensation for physical injury — Appeal against reduction of award by High Court. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1997 Supreme(SC) 1151
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.S. Verma, CJI., B.N. Kirpal, J.
NAGAPPA MAHADEV DODDAAMANI, APPELLANT
Versus
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., ANOTHER, RESPONDENTS.
Civil Appeal No. 5933 of 1997 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 25092 of 1996), decided on August 29, 1997.
Appellate courts may interfere with the quantum of compensation only if the award is inadequate or excessive. Reduction of a reasonable compensation amount without cogent reasons is legally unsustainable.
Headnote:(A) Compensation for injury - Quantum of compensation - Tribunal awarded Rs. one lakh for injury resulting in shortening of one leg by approximately two inches - High Court reduced the amount to Rs. 80,000 - Interference with the quantum of compensation in appeal is permissible only on the ground of inadequacy or the amount being too excessive - Amount of Rs. one lakh cannot be termed too excessive - Reduction of compensation by High Court without providing cogent or supporting reasons is unsustainable. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
A Tribunal awarded Rs. one lakh as compensation for an injury that caused the shortening of the victim's leg by approximately two inches. The insurer challenged the quantum, and the High Court reduced the award to Rs. 80,000. The claimant subsequently appealed this reduction.
Findings of Court:
The High Court's decision to reduce the compensation from Rs. one lakh to Rs. 80,000 was not supported by cogent reasons. Since the amount was not excessive, there was no legal basis for the reduction.
Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in reducing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal without providing supporting reasons.
Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal, interference with the quantum of compensation is warranted only if the amount is either inadequate or too excessive. If the amount is neither, and the appellate court reduces it without cogent reasons to satisfy legal requirements, such an order cannot be upheld.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Insurer challenged the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal as being excessive. (Para 2 )
3. The High Court reduced the compensation amount without providing cogent or supporting reasons to justify the interference. (Para 3 )
4. Interference with the quantum of compensation in appeal is permissible only if the amount is inadequate or excessive. (Para 3 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court judgment set aside — Tribunal's original award and interest restored. (Para 4 )
6. Under what circumstances can an appellate court interfere with the quantum of compensation?
Interference with the quantum of compensation in appeal is permitted only if the amount is found to be either inadequate or too excessive. (Para 3 )
7. What is the legal requirement for an appellate court to reduce a compensation award?
The court must provide cogent and supporting reasons to justify the reduction of the compensation amount to satisfy legal requirements. (Para 3 )
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. one lakh for an injury which resulted in shortening of one leg of the victim by approximately two inches. The question of adequacy of the amount of Rs. one lakh as compensation does not arise for consideration since the claimant did not demand a higher amount. However, the insurer challenged the quantum and the High Court had reduced that amount from Rs. one lakh to Rs. 80,000 only. Hence, this appeal by special leave.
3. We are unable to uphold the High Courts judgment reducing the amount of compensation from Rs. one lakh to Rs. 80,000 for no cogent reasons. It is settled that in appeal interference is made with the quantum of compensation only on the ground of inadequacy or the same being too excessive, as the case may be. Obviously, in this case the amount of Rs. one lakh could not be called too excessive nor was that the view taken by the High Court which merely reduced the amount to Rs. 80,000 without giving any supporting reasons to satisfy the legal requirement. The High Courts judgment is, therefore, set aside.
4. The appeal is allowed. The Tribunals award of Rs. one lakh as compensation together with interest @ 6 per cent is restored with costs throughout.
