Supreme Court enhances motor accident compensation to Rs.17.82 lakh, reiterates duty to award "just" compensation

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra heard an appeal by Hare Krushna Mahanta against the High Court of Orissa's judgment in MACA No.954 of 2019 arising from MAC No.77 of 2016. The appellant, a primary school teacher, challenged the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and modestly enhanced by the High Court; the issue before the Court was whether the award for injury, disability and attendant losses required further enhancement in light of the injuries, medical expenses and loss of earnings.

The Court allowed the civil appeal and substantially enhanced the compensation payable to the claimant to Rs.17,82,825/-, modifying both the Tribunal and High Court awards. The Supreme Court applied established precedents on assessment of future prospects, multiplier, medical expenses and heads of damage and directed interest to be paid as awarded by the Tribunal. The Court noted that, even where a claimant accepted an enhanced consolidated sum granted by a lower court, "the objective when granting compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is to ensure just and fair compensation is paid to the aggrieved party." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “17. The Tribunal/Court ought to award "just" compensation which is reasonable in the facts relying upon the evidence produced on record. Therefore, less valuation, if any, made in the claim petition would not be impediment to award just compensation exceeding the claimed amount.” Applying precedents including National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, the Court fixed the claimant's monthly income at Rs.16,340/-, applied 30% future prospects, a multiplier of 11, assessed permanent disability at 40%, and awarded components for medical expenses, attendant charges, special diet and transportation, pain and suffering, and loss of income during treatment to arrive at the total.

Background
The claimant, then aged 51 and employed as a primary school teacher at Kadodihi, was injured on 6 December 2013 when his motorcycle, ridden on the extreme left with a colleague, was struck head-on by a rashly driven vehicle coming from the opposite direction. He received treatment at Lahunipada CHC and later at Kaling Hospital, Bhubaneswar, and ISPAT General Hospital, Rourkela, underwent surgery and had a nail inserted in his right leg. An FIR under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC was registered by the husband of the other injured party.

The claimant filed a claim petition for Rs.15,00,000/-. The Tribunal proceeded ex parte against Respondent No.1 and held the insurer (Respondent No.2) liable to pay Rs.6,17,515/- with interest at 7%, assessing permanent disability at 10% and accepting a salary certificate showing monthly income of Rs.16,340/-. The claimant appealed to the High Court seeking enhancement and claiming 40% disability; the High Court added a consolidated sum of Rs.60,000/-, raising the award to Rs.6,77,515/-. The claimant thereafter moved the Supreme Court by special leave.

The Supreme Court observed that the claimant had, at one stage, accepted the additional consolidated sum granted by the High Court, but reiterated the statutory objective of awarding "just and fair" compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. Relying on precedents, the Court recalculated damages: annual income Rs.1,96,080/-, future prospects (30%) to reach Rs.2,54,904/-, multiplied by 11 to obtain Rs.28,03,944/-; permanent disability component Rs.11,21,578/- (40%); medical expenses Rs.3,08,827/-; attendant charges Rs.1,79,740/-; special diet and transportation Rs.40,000/-; pain and suffering Rs.1,00,000/-; and loss of income during two months' treatment Rs.32,680/-, making a total of Rs.17,82,825/-. The appeal was allowed in those terms and the impugned awards were modified accordingly. Interest was to be paid as awarded by the Tribunal. The order recorded time taken for disposal at each forum (Tribunal 3 years, High Court 3 years, this Court 2 years 2 months). Pending applications, if any, stood disposed of.

Case Details:
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 2204 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.5541/2023)
Case Title: Hare Krushna Mahanta v. Himadari Sahu & Anr.