1. Motor accident claim — Injuries and permanent disability — Claimant sought compensation under Motor Vehicles Act. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 629
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.
Dekaran Singh, son of Shri Narna Ram - Appellant
Versus
Pyare Lal son of Shri Chander Ram Jat – Respondent
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.739 of 2007
Decided On : 06-02-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. Dinesh Kala Mr. Sahil Duseja
For the Respondent: Mr. Rishipal Agarwal Mr. Mihir Jangid
For the Appellants : Mr. Dinesh Kala Mr. Sahil Duseja
For the Respondent: Mr. Rishipal Agarwal Mr. Mihir Jangid
Important Points
Compensation for pain and suffering, as a non-pecuniary loss, must be determined based on the victim's specific circumstances, including age, the severity of injuries, and the resulting deprivation of amenities, rather than by rigid arithmetic calculation.
Subject
Civil Law - Motor Accident Claims
Headnote
(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Quantum of compensation - Non-pecuniary loss - Pain and suffering - Compensation for pain and suffering, being a non-pecuniary loss, is incapable of being arithmetically calculated; therefore, special circumstances of the claimant, including age and unusual deprivation suffered, must be taken into account (Paras 9 and 10).
(B) Determination of compensation for pain and suffering and loss of amenity of life requires consideration of features such as age, marital status, and the extent of deprivation the victim has undergone in their life (Para 11).
Facts of the case:
A claimant sustained skull and hip bone fractures in a motor vehicle accident, leading to a 13.1% permanent disability. The claimant, a government servant, remained under treatment in a hospital for one month and on leave for six months. A Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 74,605/-, which included Rs. 13,000/- for pain and suffering. The claimant approached the High Court seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded under the head of pain and suffering.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the amount of Rs. 13,000/- awarded for pain and suffering was inadequate, considering the claimant's age of 42 years at the time of the accident, the nature of the fractures, the duration of medical treatment, and the degree of permanent disability.
Issues: Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for pain and suffering was sufficient or required enhancement based on the claimant's specific injuries and circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: Since pain and suffering constitutes a non-pecuniary loss that cannot be restored by money, the award must reflect the specific circumstances of the victim, such as their age and the impact of the injuries on their future life and amenities, to ensure the compensation is just and reasonable.
Result: Appeal partly allowed. Enhanced compensation of Rs. 37,000/- awarded in addition to the original award, totaling Rs. 1,11,605/-, with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition.
(B) Determination of compensation for pain and suffering and loss of amenity of life requires consideration of features such as age, marital status, and the extent of deprivation the victim has undergone in their life (Para 11).
Facts of the case:
A claimant sustained skull and hip bone fractures in a motor vehicle accident, leading to a 13.1% permanent disability. The claimant, a government servant, remained under treatment in a hospital for one month and on leave for six months. A Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 74,605/-, which included Rs. 13,000/- for pain and suffering. The claimant approached the High Court seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded under the head of pain and suffering.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the amount of Rs. 13,000/- awarded for pain and suffering was inadequate, considering the claimant's age of 42 years at the time of the accident, the nature of the fractures, the duration of medical treatment, and the degree of permanent disability.
Issues: Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for pain and suffering was sufficient or required enhancement based on the claimant's specific injuries and circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: Since pain and suffering constitutes a non-pecuniary loss that cannot be restored by money, the award must reflect the specific circumstances of the victim, such as their age and the impact of the injuries on their future life and amenities, to ensure the compensation is just and reasonable.
Result: Appeal partly allowed. Enhanced compensation of Rs. 37,000/- awarded in addition to the original award, totaling Rs. 1,11,605/-, with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Claimant sought enhanced compensation for pain and suffering and disability; insurer opposed citing government employment and no service break. (Para 5 , 6 )
3. Compensation for pain and suffering is non-pecuniary; must account for age, unusual deprivation, and effect on future life; awarded amount inadequate. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 )
4. In fixing compensation for pain and suffering and loss of amenities, court must consider claimant's age, marital status, and unusual deprivation. (Para 9 , 11 , 12 )
5. Appeal partly allowed; enhanced compensation awarded with interest from claim petition date. (Para 15 , 16 )
6. What factors are considered when awarding compensation for pain and suffering?
Special circumstances including age, unusual deprivation, and effect on future life must be considered; compensation is non-pecuniary and not arithmetically calculable. (Para 9 , 11 , 12 )
7. Can a government servant with no service break claim enhanced compensation for injuries?
Yes, absence of service break does not negate entitlement to adequate compensation for pain and suffering; inadequate compensation is liable to enhancement. (Para 8 , 13 )
8. When is compensation under pain and suffering head considered inadequate?
When claimant suffered multiple fractures, permanent disability, and prolonged treatment, meagre award under this head is inadequate and must be enhanced. (Para 8 , 13 , 14 )
ORDER :
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.
1. By way of filing the instant misc. appeal, a challenge has been led to the impugned award dated 31.10.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chomu, Jaipur in MAC Case No.110/2006 by which an award of Rs.74,605/- has been passed in favour of the claimants.
2. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the appellant- claimant (for short “the claimant”) has approached this Court by way of filing the instant misc. appeal seeking enhancement of the same.
3. Brief facts of the case are that an accident occurred on 10.06.2004, when the claimant along-with others was travelling in a Scorpio Car bearing No. RJ 14 SU 1448 and while they were coming from Rewari to Khatushyam, on the way, one truck bearing No.RJ O7 G 6054 caused the accident by driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, wherein the claimant sustained injuries and fracture on his skull and hip bone, hence, he approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chomu, Jaipur (for short “the Tribunal”) seeking suitable amount of compensation.
4. After hearing both sides, learned Tribunal awarded compensation for a tune of Rs.74,605/- in favour of the claimant under various heads.
5. Learned counsel for the claimant submits that on account of the aforesaid, multiple injuries and a fracture was sustained by the claimant, he remained under treatment and on leave for a period of six months, hence, he has been deprived of the amenities and suffered mental agony and under this head, very meagre and petty amount of Rs.13,000/- has been awarded. Learned counsel submits that looking to 13.1% permanent disability of the claimant, the aforesaid amount is quite meagre, which requires suitable enhancement.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-Insurance Company opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the claimant and submitted that the claimant is a Government servant and there is no break in his service, hence, under these circumstances, considering the overall facts and the documents available on the record, an appropriate compensation has been awarded, which needs no interference by this Court and the instant appeal is liable to be rejected.
7. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record.
8. This fact is not in dispute that the claimant has met with an accident on the fateful day and sustained multiple injuries and fractures on his skull and hip bone. This fact is also not in dispute that he remained under treatment at SMS Hospital, Jaipur for around one month and he remained on leave for a period of six months. This fact is also not in dispute that the claimant is a Government servant, but on account of six months leave, there is no break in his service. But looking to the injuries suffered by the claimant in the aforesaid accident and since he remained under treatment for a considerable time, which is more than six months and the amount awarded under the head of fiscal pain and mental agony, i.e., Rs.13,000/- is inadequate, which is liable to be enhanced.
9. Pain and suffering would be categorised as a non-pecuniary loss, as it is incapable of being arithmetically calculated. Therefore, when compensation is to be awarded under the head of pain and sufferings, special circumstances of the claimant have to be taken into account, including the age of the victim and unusual deprivation, that the victim has suffered.
10. Though, no specific criteria has been prescribed in this regard, but the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of judgments has dealt with this issue in the case R.D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd. reported in (1995)1 SCC 551, wherein it has been held in Paras 10 & 17, which reads as under:-
“10. It cannot be disputed that because of the accident the appellant who was an active practising lawyer has become paraplegic on account of the injuries sustained by him. It is really difficult in this background to assess the exact amount of com
