Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KAROL, PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ.
Atul Tiwari – Appellant
Versus
Regional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 151 of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 24205 of 2022)
Decided on : 06-01-2025
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Sections 168 and 173 – 60% permanently disability suffered in motor accident – Compensation of Rs. 19,43,800/- along with 7% interest awarded by Tribunal – Money cannot substitute a life lost but effort has to be made for grant of just compensation so far as money can compensate – Basis for assessment of all damages for person injury is compensation – Perfect compensation is hardly possible but one has to keep in mind that victim has suffered at hands of wrongdoer and court must take care to give him full and fair compensation for that he had suffered – In some cases for personal injury, claim could be in respect of lifetime's earnings lost because, though he will live, he cannot earn his living – In others, claim may be made for partial loss of earnings – Each case has to be considered in light of its own facts and at end, one must ask whether sum awarded is a fair and reasonable sum – High Court only to the extent of enhancing compensation of petitioner under head “Loss of Income” has not made any error – However, High Court has utterly failed in not delving into correctness of compensation granted by MACT under other heads – Amount of compensation enhanced to Rs. 48,00,000/-. (Paras 35, 36 and 37)
Facts of the case:
Short question which is posed for consideration before this Court is, whether compensation should be enhanced or not.
Findings of Court:
High Court has utterly failed in not delving into correctness of compensation granted by MACT under other heads. Therefore, this court is inclined to enhance amount of compensation to be granted to petitioner to Rs. 48,00,000/- in toto, same is hereby matched with amount claimed by him in his application before MACT.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The court emphasizes that money cannot replace a life lost, but efforts should be made to provide just compensation that adequately reflects the damages suffered (!) (!) .
In cases of permanent disability resulting from a motor accident, the basis for awarding damages is to compensate the victim fairly for all injuries and losses, acknowledging that perfect compensation is difficult but striving for full and fair recompense (!) (!) .
The assessment of damages should consider all relevant heads, including loss of income, medical expenses, attendant charges, transportation, speech therapy, physiotherapy, non-pecuniary damages, and future prospects, with a detailed evaluation of each head based on evidence and medical opinion (!) (!) .
The Court recognizes that the multiplier method is the appropriate and accepted approach for calculating future earnings loss, with the multiplier determined by the age of the victim and other relevant factors, ensuring consistency and fairness (!) (!) .
When assessing loss of dependency, deductions for personal expenses and appropriate multipliers should be applied to the notional income of the victim, with additions for future prospects based on the victim's age and employment status (!) (!) .
The Court notes that damages for non-pecuniary heads, such as loss of amenities, mental pain, and loss of marriage prospects, should be awarded on a reasonable basis, with the understanding that such damages are inherently difficult to quantify but must be just and fair (!) (!) .
It is important that the compensation awarded reflects the actual impact on the victim’s earning capacity, considering the extent of permanent disability and its effect on the victim’s ability to work and carry out daily activities (!) (!) .
The court underscores that the correctness of the compensation under each head must be scrutinized, and errors or underestimations should be rectified to ensure the victim receives adequate and just compensation (!) (!) .
Overall, the court advocates for a comprehensive and fair assessment of all damages, matching the awarded amount with the actual needs and losses suffered by the victim, and correcting any deficiencies in the original award (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need a detailed analysis or specific legal advice related to this case.
JUDGMENT :
PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The challenge in the present appeal is to the common order dated 23.09.22 in Misc. Appeal no. 1969/2014 and Misc. Appeal no.2181/2021 whereby the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissed the appeal preferred by the respondent herein (Misc. Appeal no. 1969/2014) and had partially allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioner herein (Misc. Appeal no.2181/2021).
3. The factual background is that on 3.10.2009 the petitioner herein was travelling to Panchmarhi with his friend on a motorcycle. They met with an accident with a truck which was being driven on the wrong side and in a negligent manner. The petitioner suffered various serious injuries including injuries to head, jaws, legs, knees, chest and ribs for which the petitioner was operated on three occasions. On account of his serious injuries, the petitioner was rendered 60% permanently disabled. Accordingly, the petitioner through his father and natural guardian filed an application for compensation u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter “MACT”), Bhopal Madhya Pradesh. The MACT vide its order dated 30.6.14 allowed the application and granted a compensation of Rs. 19,43,800/- to the petitioner along with interest at rate of 7% p.a from the date of application till the date of payment. The MACT has awarded compensation as shown in the table below:
| HEAD | Compensation Amount awarded by MACT |
| Loss of Income | Rs. 11,23,000/- |
| Speech Therapy Expenses | Rs. 53,000/- (Already Undergone) & Rs. 50,000/- (Future Therapy) |
| Physiotherapy Expenses | Rs. 1,28,000/- (Already Undergone) & Rs. 1,08,000/- (Future Therapy) |
| Attendant Expenses | Rs. 1,20,000/- |
| Travelling/ Transportation Expenses | Rs. 11,600/- (Already Spent) & Rs. 20,000/- (Future Expenses) |
| Nutritious Food Expenses | Rs. 50,000/- |
| Mental & Physical Pain | Rs. 1,00,000/- |
| Expenditure on Operation & Surgery | Rs. 80,000/- (Already Spent) |
| Non-Pecuniary Expenses | Rs. 1,00,000/- |
4. Feeling aggrieved by the order of MACT a cross appeal was preferred by petitioner herein claiming enhancement of compensation amount and by the respondent herein claiming reduction of the compensation amount. The High Court vide the impugned common order dismissed the appeal of the respondent and had partially allowed the appeal of the petitioner thereby granted an enhancement in the compensation for Loss of Income from Rs. 11,23,200/- to Rs. 27,21,600/-.
5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the High Court the petitioner has preferred the present appeal.
6. The Ld. counsel for the petitioner submitted that in light of Sidram v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr, (2022)8 SCR 403 the petitioner being a victim of serious injuries leading to permanent disability, he is entitled for compensation for future prospects at 50% against 40% as granted by the High Court. It is further submitted that the compensation due to the petitioner under the head of loss of income, by taking multiplier of 18 should be enhanced to Rs. 64,80,000/- against Rs. 27,21,600/- as granted by the High Court.
7. It is submitted that the MACT has mechanically deducted the petitioner’s loss of income at 60% basis the petitioner’s disability. He further submits that the petitioner’s case is of 100% functional disability and a total loss of income, thus, no deduction under this head is liable to be made.
8. It is submitted that the notional income adopted by the High Court was too less for a meritorious student such as petitioner and it deserves to be enhanced to Rs. 20,000/- per month against Rs. 15,000/- per month given the efflux of time and changed economic scenario.
9. It is submitted that MACT failed to award future medical expenses to the petitioner on the ground that petitioner’s father is a governmen
Permanently disability suffered in motor accident – Money cannot substitute a life lost but effort has to be made for grant of just compensation so far as money can compensate.
Permanent disability caused in road accident – By arithmetical calculation, it cannot be decided what may be exact amount of money which would represent pain and suffering to a person, but as per rec....
The court emphasized the necessity of applying the multiplier method for assessing compensation in personal injury cases, rejecting the lower multiplier used by the Tribunal and enhancing compensatio....
Compensation in motor vehicle accidents must fully restore claimants' financial status, considering future medical expenses and loss of earning capacity, as per established legal precedents.
Compensation in personal injury cases should fully restore claimants to their pre-accident position, factoring in medical costs, loss of earnings, and future prospects.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
