1. Motor accident claim — severe injuries resulting in comatose state — dispute over disability percentage and compensation for attendant charges and pain and suffering. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 305
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjay Karol, Manmohan, JJ.
Prakash Chand Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Rambabu Saini & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2254 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C)No. 3066 of 2024)
Decided On : 10-02-2025
Important Points
The court upheld the Medical Board's assessment of 100% disability, emphasizing the need for adequate compensation for pain and suffering, ultimately awarding Rs.48,70,000/- to the claimant.
Subject
Personal Injury - Motor Accident Claims
Headnote
(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 166 and 168 - Claim for compensation due to motor accident - The claimant-appellant suffered severe injuries leading to a comatose state after being hit by a negligent driver. The Tribunal initially awarded Rs.16,29,465/- as compensation, which was later modified by the High Court to Rs.19,39,418/-. The claimant appealed for further enhancement based on medical assessments and future prospects. (Paras 2, 5, 12)
(B) Compensation - Assessment of disability - The court emphasized the importance of medical opinions in determining disability and compensation, stating that the Tribunal's rejection of the Medical Board's findings was unjustified. (Paras 8, 11)
Facts of the case:
The claimant-appellant was involved in an accident on 23rd March, 2014, resulting in severe injuries and a comatose state. The Tribunal awarded compensation based on assessed disability and medical expenses. (Paras 2, 4)
Findings of Court:
The final compensation payable to the claimant-appellant was determined to be Rs.48,70,000/- with interest at 7% per annum from the date of the claim petition. (Paras 12, 13)
Issues: The main issues included the assessment of the claimant's disability, the adequacy of compensation for pain and suffering, and the liability of the insurance company. (Paras 3, 5)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Medical Board's assessment of 100% disability should be upheld, and the compensation for pain and suffering was insufficient, warranting an increase. (Paras 8, 11)
Result: Appeal allowed.
(B) Compensation - Assessment of disability - The court emphasized the importance of medical opinions in determining disability and compensation, stating that the Tribunal's rejection of the Medical Board's findings was unjustified. (Paras 8, 11)
Facts of the case:
The claimant-appellant was involved in an accident on 23rd March, 2014, resulting in severe injuries and a comatose state. The Tribunal awarded compensation based on assessed disability and medical expenses. (Paras 2, 4)
Findings of Court:
The final compensation payable to the claimant-appellant was determined to be Rs.48,70,000/- with interest at 7% per annum from the date of the claim petition. (Paras 12, 13)
Issues: The main issues included the assessment of the claimant's disability, the adequacy of compensation for pain and suffering, and the liability of the insurance company. (Paras 3, 5)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Medical Board's assessment of 100% disability should be upheld, and the compensation for pain and suffering was insufficient, warranting an increase. (Paras 8, 11)
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Anuj Bhandari, AOR Mr. Anuj Bhandari, Adv.
For Respondent(s): Ms. Prerna Mehta, AOR
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Anuj Bhandari, AOR Mr. Anuj Bhandari, Adv.
For Respondent(s): Ms. Prerna Mehta, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Dispute over whether Medical Board's 100% disability assessment should be accepted and the adequacy of compensation for attendant charges and pain and suffering. (Para 6 , 7 )
3. Expert opinion of a Medical Board on disability cannot be substituted by the Tribunal's own view without a formal re-assessment of the injury. (Para 8 , 9 , 11 )
4. Expert medical opinions on permanent disability are binding unless the court directs a re-assessment; comatose states justify enhanced compensation for pain and suffering. (Para 9 , 11 )
5. Appeal allowed — compensation enhanced by accepting 100% disability, awarding attendant charges, and increasing compensation for pain and suffering. (Para 12 , 13 )
6. How should a Tribunal treat a disability certificate issued by a duly constituted Medical Board?
The opinion of a Medical Board, being an expert opinion, must be treated as such. If the Tribunal doubts the medical certificate, it must have the disability re-assessed rather than substituting its own view for the expert's determination. (Para 9 )
7. Under what circumstances can a claimant be awarded compensation for attendant charges in motor accident claims?
Compensation for attendant charges is warranted when the medical evidence establishes that the claimant is entirely dependent on others for activities of daily living due to severe disability or a comatose state. (Para 10 , 11 )
8. Does a comatose state justify an increase in compensation for pain and suffering beyond general awards?
Yes, for a person in a coma who is entirely dependent on others, the nature of the disability and the severity of the condition justify enhanced compensation specifically under the head of pain and suffering. (Para 11 )
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KAROL, J.
1. Leave granted. This appeal is at the instance of the claimant-appellant aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 19th April, 2023 passed in S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.3050 of 2017 by the High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench1[The ‘impugned order’], while entertaining an appeal arising out of a judgment and order dated 18th January, 2017, passed in Claim No.575/2014 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alwar2[The ‘Tribunal’].
2. On 23rd March, 2014, the claimant-appellant was returning to his village Rajpur Badha from Cheel Ki Bawdi on his motorcycle bearing No.RJ 02 SC 4860, when another vehicle, a Maruti Omni bearing No.RJ 02 UA 1663 came from the opposite direction, on the wrong side of the road. The claimant- appellant suffered numerous injuries including on the head and his right leg. FIR No.81/14 was registered at Police Station Tehla, and he was taken, first to Katta Hospital, Bandikui, and thereafter, to Sawai Mansingh Hospital, Jaipur. Although, he survived his accident, he is in a comatose state.
3. The learned Tribunal framed three primary issues :
a) Concerning rashness and negligence of the allegedly offending vehicle;
b) The entitlement of the petitioner-claimant appellant to receive compensation and the extent thereof;
c) Liability of the insurance company, if any.
4. On the first count, it was found that the respondents had not presented any evidence which would dislodge the case of the claimant-appellant. It was found that the Maruti Omni had indeed been responsible for the accident, being driven at high speed and negligently. On the second count, the conclusion of the Tribunal is as under :
“Therefore, according to the above discussion, the compensation amount to be given to Petitioner is determined in the following manner:-
| 1. | 50% permanent disability on account of loss of income due to injury 95,370 x 13 | Rs.12,39,810/- |
| 2. | Five Medical reimbursement bills and transportation expenses | Rs.171,155/- |
| 3. | 37 days admitted in hospital @ Rs.500 per day for hospitalization | Rs.18,500/- and for the attendant |
| 4. | Lump sum payment for physical and mental pain, suffering of family members, deprivation of comforts and luxuries and future treatment for the said injury etc. | 2,00,000 |
| Total amount = | Rs.16,29,465/-.” | |
The third issue of liability of the insurance company was decided against them.
5. On appeal, the High Court held as under:
“It is an admitted position that no neurosurgeon and treating doctor were produced by the claimant to prove hundred percent disability of the claimant before the Tribunal. So, in my considered opinion, trial court rightly came to the conclusion that disability certificate Ex.16 was not duly proved by the claimant. So, the Tribunal rightly assessed the disability of the injured to the extent of 50%. It is also admitted position that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount regarding future prospects of the injured. So, in my considered opinion, claimant was below 50 years of age, claimant is entitled to get 25% towards future prospects.
| Net Annual Income of the claimant as per income tax returns | Rs.1,90,740/- x 50% = 95,370/- x 13 = Rs. 12,39,810/- |
| 25% future prospects | Rs.12,39,810/- x 25% = 3,09,952.5/- Rounding off Rs.3,09,953/-) |
| Reimbursement of Medical Bill and transportation | Rs.1,71,155/- |
| For admission in the Hospital for 37 days @ 500/- per day and attendant charges | Rs.18,500/- |
| For physical and mental agony, pain and loss of amenities | Rs.2,00,000/- |
| Grand Total | Rs.19,39,418/- |
Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by the appellant-claimant is party allowed. The judgment and award dated 18.01.2017 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that
