The main legal point established in the judgment is the re-evaluation of additional compensation granted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the interpretation of loss of marriage prospects. The judgment also highlighted the unjust imposition of penal interest on the insurer.

JUDGMENT :

Appellant seeks review of the judgment.

2. The appellant was the insurer in a proceedings for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal challenging the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal for the claimant. There was a cross objection also in the appeal by the claimant challenging the inadequacy of the compensation. This court disposed of the appeal and the cross objection in terms of the judgment sought to be reviewed.

3. The relevant facts are the following: The claimant sustained serious injuries in a motor accident occurred on 12.01.2009. She was an employee in an Airlines company earning a monthly salary of Rs.4,950/-. At the time of accident, the claimant was aged 22 years. Rs.70,00,000/- was the claim made in the proceedings. As against the said claim, the Tribunal has granted Rs.46,80,916/- by way of compensation. As noted, both the insurer and the claimant were aggrieved by the said decision of the Tribunal.

4. It has come out that the Medical Board has assessed the permanent disability of the claimant at 100%. This Court found that while computing the compensation payable to the claimant for loss of earning capacity, the Tribunal has not added any amount to the multiplicand towards future prospects. Consequently, this court has re-computed the compensation payable to the claimant under that head and granted to her an additional compensation of Rs.4,32,000/-. This court has also granted Rs.3,00,000/-towards pain and suffering, Rs.3,00,000/- towards loss of amenities and enjoyments in life, Rs.3,00,000/- towards loss of marriage prospects, Rs.25,000/- towards extra nourishment and Rs.1,00,000/- towards reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred, by way of additional compensation. This court, however, noticed that there was duplication to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- in the compensation granted by the Tribunal under the heads viz, loss of earning capacity, loss of future prospects and disfigurement. In the circumstances, after adjusting the said sum of Rs.5,00,000/- against the additional compensation to which the claimant was found entitled, this court disposed of the appeal and cross objection directing the insurer to pay the balance, viz, Rs.9,57,000/- by way of additional compensation. It is this judgment that is sought to be reviewed in this proceedings.

5. Heard the learned senior counsel for the appellant as also the learned counsel for the legal representative of the claimant who died pending the proceedings before this court.

6. The learned senior counsel for the appellant did not challenge the additional compensation granted by this court towards loss of earning capacity, extra nourishment and reimbursement of medical expenses incurred. It was, however, contended by the learned senior counsel that this court was not justified in granting Rs.3,00,000/- by way of additional compensation towards pain and suffering. It was pointed out that Rs.2,00,000/- granted by the Tribunal under that head would satisfy the requirement of just compensation in a case of this nature. Similarly, it was contended by the learned senior counsel that Rs.1,90,000/- granted by the Tribunal to the claimant towards loss of amenities and enjoyments in life would satisfy the requirement of just compensation under that head and the additional compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- granted by this court under that head was, therefore, not justified. Likewise, it was contended by the learned senior counsel that the claimant is not entitled to compensation for loss of marriage prospects in addition to the compensation granted towards loss of amenities and enjoyments in life and this court has, therefore, acted without jurisdiction in granting Rs.3,00,000/- by way of additional compensation over and above Rs.1,00,000/- granted by the Tribunal under that head. The learned senior counsel has also contended that this court had imposed penal interest on the insurer for non-compliance of the directions issued as regards the additi