Court emphasized that distinct compensation heads cannot be reduced interchangeably, affirming that adequate compensation must be maintained for permanent disabilities.

JUDGMENT :

Atul S. Chandurkar, J.

1. The appellant-claimant is aggrieved by the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in C.M.A. Nos.902 of 2020 and 677 of 2021 as a result of which the amount of compensation that was awarded to the claimant by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal came to be reduced.

2. It is the case of the claimant that on 03.07.2011, he was travelling in an Omni bus bearing registration No.KA 20A 6604 as a passenger from Coimbatore to Chennai. There were 22 co-passengers travelling with him. At about 10:15 PM, the said bus that was being driven by one Mr. Balaji gave a dash to a tamarind tree that was at the left side of the road. As a result of the said accident, various passengers suffered grievous injuries. Insofar as the claimant is concerned, he too suffered serious injuries resulting in 100% permanent disability. He was required to undergo treatment for a considerable period of time. When the accident occurred, the claimant was aged about 21 years and was pursuing the degree course in Arts. In view of the aforesaid accident, the claimant filed M.C.O.P. No.962 of 2011 seeking compensation of an amount of Rs. 1 crore under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’).

3. Along with the aforesaid claim petition, various other claim petitions were filed by other injured passengers who were travelling in the said Omni bus. All the claim petitions were tried together. After considering the affidavits filed by the contesting respondents as well as the evidence led by the parties, the learned Member of the Claims Tribunal held that the offending vehicle was owned by the second respondent. The said vehicle was insured with the third respondent- insurance company. It was also held that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the first respondent. On these findings, the liability of paying compensation was saddled on the insurance company. While determining the amount of compensation to be awarded to the claimant, the Claims Tribunal noted that the claimant had suffered 100% permanent physical disability. On the basis of documentary material on record, it granted compensation under various heads including medical expenses, future prospects, loss of income, future medical expenses, attendant charges as well as towards pain and suffering of family members. An amount of Rs.67,83,866/- came to be awarded as compensation to the claimant.

4. The claimant as well as the insurance company were aggrieved by the award dated 30.08.2019 passed by the Claims Tribunal. While the claimant preferred C.M.A. No.902 of 2020 seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation, the insurance company preferred C.M.A. No.677 of 2021 challenging the quantum of compensation as awarded. Both the appeals were heard together and by the judgment dated 16.08.2022, the Division Bench of the Madras High Court affirmed the findings as regards rash and negligent driving by the first respondent and ownership of the offending vehicle as regards the second respondent. The liability of the insurance company to satisfy the claim for compensation was also accepted. However insofar as the amount of monetary compensation is concerned, the High Court was of the view that future medical expenses and attendant charges had been granted on a higher side. The amounts granted under these heads were thus reduced. Insofar as compensation granted towards permanent disability, loss of enjoyment of life and amenities as well as towards pain and sufferings of family members came to be set aside. As a consequence, the amount of compensation as granted by the Claims Tribunal came to be reduced by an amount of Rs. 19 lacs. Consequently, it was held that the claimant was entitled to compensation of Rs.48,83,866/-. The appeal preferred by the claimant was thus dismissed while the appeal preferred by the insurance company was partly allowed. The claimant being aggrieved by the reduction in the amount of compe