Compensation enhancement permitted without cross-appeal; interest on enhanced sums restricted for inordinate claimant delay.

The deceased, Pandurang Gopal Dabhole, died following a motor accident on May 24, 2014, when his motorcycle was hit from behind by an offending Bolero Jeep.

The Respondents/Claimants (wife and son) filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Islampur, awarded Rs. 13,90,000 with 7% interest.

The Appellant-Insurance Company challenged the award primarily on the quantum of compensation, arguing that the deceased’s monthly income of Rs. 15,000 was assessed too high and lacked documentary evidence.

Although the Claimants did not file a cross-appeal or cross-objection, they sought enhancement of compensation regarding future prospects and consortium during the hearing.

1. Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of the deceased's monthly income at Rs. 15,000 was sustainable based on the evidence.

2. Whether the Court can enhance the compensation in the absence of a cross-appeal or cross-objection by the Claimants.

3. Whether interest on the enhanced portion of compensation should be awarded from the date of the claim application or from the date of the appellate judgment.

The court applied Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which mandates the award of "just compensation".

It relied on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) to award 10% future prospects for self-employed individuals aged 55.

Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram (2018) for awarding consortium to all claimants.

The court cited Surekha v. Santosh (2021), which held that courts must not take a hyper-technical approach and can enhance compensation even without a cross-appeal to ensure justice.

The court applied Section 171 of the MV Act and principles from Kajal v. Jagdish Chand (2020), which permit the court to grant interest from a later date in cases of inordinate delay or negligence by the claimant.

The Court upheld the income assessment of Rs. 15,000 per month, noting that bank statements (Ex. 55) showed average monthly deposits exceeding Rs. 40,000, which justified the Tribunal's conservative estimate despite the lack of formal account books.

Applying Surekha, the Court determined it had the authority to enhance the award to meet the "just compensation" standard, adding 10% for future prospects and Rs. 40,000 consortium for each claimant.

Regarding the interest on the enhanced amount (Rs. 1,72,000), the Court noted a four-year delay by the Claimants in seeking enhancement and their failure to file a cross-appeal.

Distinguishing the standard practice of granting interest from the date of the claim, the Court reasoned that granting backdated interest on an un-pursued enhancement would constitute a "bonanza" rather than "just compensation".

The Court held that while the original award of Rs. 13,90,000 would carry 7% interest from the date of the claim application, the enhanced amount of Rs. 1,72,000 would carry 7% interest only from the date of the appellate judgment (March 27, 2026) due to the Claimants' inordinate delay.

The Claimants were directed to pay the requisite court fees for the enhanced amount before withdrawal.