Key Points: - The tribunal awarded Rs. 22,85,322/-, which the High Court reduced to Rs. 12,00,000/- and interest from 7.5% to 7%; Supreme Court set out final compensation as Rs. 9,10,000/- with 9% interest (!) (!) (!) (!) - Disability certificate interpolation by the doctor indicated the disability was temporary and likely to improve; the Court held permanent disability was not established (!) (!) - Court quantified components: loss of income Rs. 5,00,000 (as lump-sum for temporary disability), trauma/pain Rs. 2,00,000, medical expenses Rs. 2,09,622, total Rs. 9,10,000; insurer to deposit within 12 weeks (!) - Tribunal’s income calculation had inconsistencies; appellate court noted contradictory income figures and recalculated loss of earning at Rs. 79,877 per year, based on 3-year average income and 55% disability (!) - Emphasized that compensation must cover physical injury, treatment, loss of earnings, and loss of normal life, not limited to medical bills (!) (!)

What is the correct compensation in a motor accident claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act when the disability is temporary and not permanent?

What constitutes adequate compensation including loss of earning, medical expenses, and pain and suffering in a case of disability with evidence of interpolation in a disability certificate?

How should courts address a non-speaking order and ensure proper application of mind to evidence and facts in determining quantum of compensation?