1. Motor vehicle accident — Claim for enhancement of compensation for grievous injuries and functional disability — Assessment of income and future prospects. (Para 2 , 3 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 929
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.K. MAHESHWARI, RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.
Chandramani Nanda – Appellant
Versus
Sarat Chandra Swain And Another – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 11100 of 2024 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 3050 of 2023)
Decided on : 15-10-2024
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Just Compensation – Amount of compensation claimed is not a bar for Tribunal and High Court to award more than what is claimed – Rough calculation made by claimant is not a bar or upper limit.
Just Compensation – Amount of compensation claimed is not a bar for Tribunal and High Court to award more than what is claimed – Rough calculation made by claimant is not a bar or upper limit.
Subject
Civil Law - Motor Accident Claims
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 168 and 173 – Injury in motor accident – Compensation of Rs. 20,60,385/- alongwith 6% interest awarded by Tribunal, applying multiplier of 16 – Tribunal, in addition to loss of future income calculated at 60% disability, awarded Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental agony, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities, and further awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- for future medical expenses – High Court enhanced compensation to Rs. 30,99,873 considering functional disability at 100% as opposed to 60%, as assessed by Tribunal – Enhanced income should be considered for calculation of compensation – Age of appellant was 32 years at the time of accident, he is entitled to 40% future prospects – Appellant is also entitled to compensation on account of loss of marriage prospects – Nothing has been awarded to appellant under this head – Appellant deserves to be awarded sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on this account – Total compensation of Rs. 52,31,000/- alongwith 6% interest awarded. (Paras 13, 14, 14.3, 18 and 22)
(B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 168 – Just Compensation – Award of – Amount of compensation claimed is not a bar for Tribunal and High Court to award more than what is claimed, provided it is found to be just and reasonable – It is duty of Court to assess fair compensation – Rough calculation made by claimant is not a bar or upper limit. (Para 20)
Facts of the case:
Claimant, in a motor vehicle accident having suffered injuries, has filed present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
Findings of Court:
Total amount of compensation is rounded off to Rs.52,31,000/-. Appellant will be entitled to get interest on enhanced compensation at the rate of 6% as awarded by High Court.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Chitta Ranjan Mishra, Adv. Mr. Shakti Kanta Pattanaik, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, AOR Ms. K Enatoli Sema, Adv. Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Adv. Mr. Prang Newmai, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Chitta Ranjan Mishra, Adv. Mr. Shakti Kanta Pattanaik, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, AOR Ms. K Enatoli Sema, Adv. Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Adv. Mr. Prang Newmai, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Dispute over annual income assessment, entitlement to future prospects, attendant charges, loss of marriage prospects, and whether the claimed amount limits the award. (Para 10 , 11 )
3. Income assessed on progressive earnings; entitlement to future prospects and attendant charges for permanent mental disability; claim amount not a ceiling for just compensation. (Para 14 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 )
4. The amount of compensation claimed in a petition is not a bar to the court awarding a higher amount if found just and reasonable. (Para 20 )
5. Appeal allowed — Compensation enhanced by modifying the High Court order. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 )
6. Does the amount claimed in a motor vehicle accident claim petition limit the compensation the court can award?
No. The amount claimed is not a bar for the Tribunal or High Court to award more than what is claimed, provided the amount is just and reasonable. It is the court's duty to assess fair compensation. (Para 20 )
7. Under what circumstances can a claimant be awarded compensation for future attendant charges?
Future attendant charges may be awarded when the nature of the injury, such as permanent mental disability, requires long-term care and the primary caretaker's ability to provide such care is limited by age or financial constraints. (Para 16 , 17 )
8. Is a claimant entitled to compensation for loss of marriage prospects in injury cases?
Yes, a claimant who suffers severe injuries resulting in significant disability may be awarded compensation for the loss of marriage prospects. (Para 18 )
JUDGMENT :
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The claimant, in a motor vehicle accident having suffered injuries, has filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. He is aggrieved by the order1[Dated 24.08.2022 in MACA No.256 of 2019] passed by the High Court2[High Court of Orissa at Cuttack].
3. The facts as available on record are that on 16.01.2014 four persons occupying Verito Vibe Car bearing Registration No.OD-05-D- 9596 were travelling from Sambalpur, Odisha to Cuttack. At about 01:30 pm, the offending Bus bearing Registration No.OD-14-A-1774 being driven at high speed struck against the said car on NH-55 near CPP Chawk, NALCO, Anugul, Odisha, as a result of which the occupants of the car suffered serious injuries. One of the occupants, Ranjan Rout, succumbed to the injuries on 31.05.2017. A police case bearing P.S. Case No.7/2014 was registered against the driver of the offending bus under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC3[Indian Penal Code]. Three injured occupants of the car and the legal heirs of the deceased, Ranjan Rout filed different claim petitions, which were assigned to the Court of 2nd Additional District Judge-cum-3rd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuttack. The present appellant had filed petition4[MAC Case No.176 of 2014] claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-. As all the claims had arisen from the same accident the Tribunal clubbed all the claim petitions and decided the same by a common Award5[Dated 15.01.2019].
4. A perusal of the said Award passed by the Tribunal shows that registered owner of the offending bus did not appear despite service, hence, was proceeded against ex parte. The Insurance Company6[National Insurance Company Limited] contested the claim petitions. The Tribunal framed the following issues:
“(i) Whether the claim applications are maintainable?
(ii) Whether due to rash and/or negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration No.OD-14-A-1774 the accident took place and in that accident deceased namely Ranjan Rout succumbed to injuries and other petitioners namely Dipti Ranjan Pattanayak, Santosh Baral, and Chandramani Nanda sustained injuries on their persons?
(iii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to get the compensation and if so, what would be the extent?
(iv) Whether both the Opposite Parties or either of them are/is liable to pay the compensation? and
(v) To what other relief/s, if any, the respective petitioners are entitled?”
5. The Issue No.(ii) was decided in favour of the claimants. As far as entitlement of compensation is concerned, the claim of the present appellant was discussed under para ‘13’ of the Award of the Tribunal. The evidence led to the effect that he sustained head injury, which was grievous in nature. The claimant was initially admitted in Angul Government Hospital and due to his serious condition, he was shifted to Ashwini Hospital, Cuttack for better treatment and remained admitted there from 16.01.2014 to 11.02.2014. During that period, he had undergone a major brain surgery. The mother of the appellant in her statement stated that due to the accident, her son (appellant) had become mentally unsound. He is not able to understand anything and is bedridden since then.
5.1 The appellant visited Ashwini Hospital for his follow up after surgery on 17.06.2014, 15.09.2014 and 25.07.2015. It was claimed that the mother of the appellant spent about Rs.15,00,000/- on his treatment, which is still going on. However, total bills produced towards medical expenses were to the tune of Rs.3,31,153/-. The aforesaid amount was awarded by the Tribunal. The Record Keeper of the Ashwini Hospital was also summoned in evidence who proved the medical record of the appellant, which mentioned that he had sustained grievous head injury fracture of C6 and T4 vertebra. He also produced the medical bills.
6. As far as the employment of the appellant is concerned, it was claimed that at the relevant point of time he was working as Branch Manager
