Absence of income loss does not preclude non-pecuniary compensation for permanent disability.

The appellant-claimant, a Government employee serving as a Constable at the S.P. Office, Golaghat, sustained injuries in a motor accident on 6 January 2019, resulting in loss of vision in his right eye assessed at 30% permanent visual disability.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kamrup (Rural), Amingaon, in MAC Case No. 172/2019, awarded compensation based principally on the medical and other bills produced, amounting to ₹1,33,697, but declined compensation for loss of income because the claimant had continued to receive his full salary during his three-month treatment leave.

The claimant appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement under the heads of loss of income, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, conveyance, attendant charges, special diet and future medical expenses.

The insurer opposed the appeal, contending that the claimant had suffered no income loss, that no doctor had been examined to prove the disability, and that the claimant had produced documentary proof only for ₹1,33,697.

Whether the claimant was entitled to compensation for loss of income despite having received his full salary during the period of treatment and having resumed his normal Government duties?

Whether the compensation awarded under pain and suffering, loss of amenities, conveyance and attendant charges required enhancement in view of the claimant’s 30% permanent visual disability and three-month treatment period?

Whether the claimant was entitled to additional compensation for unproved expenditure on transportation, attendants, special diet and future medical treatment?

The appeal was examined under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which permits an aggrieved party to challenge an award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

Compensation in a motor accident claim must be assessed under appropriate heads for proved pecuniary loss and reasonable non-pecuniary loss, including pain and suffering, loss of amenities and necessary conveyance or attendant expenses.

The Court considered the principles referred to in K. Suresh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., concerning compensation for loss of expectation of normal life, and Uttar Pradesh Road Transport Corporation v. Vibhor Fialok, concerning reasonable awards for conveyance, attendant expenses and related necessities, although the final enhancement was determined on the facts and evidence of the present case.

Actual income-loss compensation is not payable where the claimant continues to receive full salary and suffers no established diminution in earnings.

The Court upheld the Tribunal’s refusal to award loss of income because the claimant admitted that he had received his full salary during the three-month leave period, resumed normal duties, attended office regularly and could read properly; therefore, no actual earning loss was established despite the disability.

However, the Court accepted that the claimant had suffered 30% loss of vision and that the disability necessarily affected his enjoyment and expectation of a normal life.

Although the claimant could not substantiate the alleged expenditure of approximately ₹8,00,000, the insurer did not rebut the fact that he had undergone treatment for three months following the accident.

On that basis, the Court enhanced pain-and-suffering compensation to ₹1,00,000, awarded ₹50,000 for loss of amenities and ₹50,000 towards conveyance and attendant charges.

It declined to interfere with the amount awarded for diet and nutrition because the relevant expenditure was not sufficiently established.

The Court held that the claimant was not entitled to compensation for loss of income because he had received his full salary and continued in service, but was entitled to enhanced non-pecuniary and incidental compensation for pain and suffering, loss of amenities, conveyance and attendant charges.

The total compensation was modified to ₹3,33,697, and HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd. was directed to deposit the additional ₹1,20,000 before the Tribunal within six weeks, together with interest at 6% per annum from 12 April 2021.