Compensation enhancement requires evidence establishing additional loss or expenditure beyond the Tribunal’s assessment.

The appellant was travelling as a passenger in Bus No. CG-07-E-5300 on 22 January 2018 when the driver allegedly drove rashly and negligently and suddenly applied the brakes near Village Dhekuna. She was thrown against the front seat and sustained injuries, including a fracture of the right humerus and injury/dislocation around the elbow. She underwent surgery with insertion of steel rods on 24 January 2018 and a subsequent operation for their removal on 27 March 2019.

An FIR was registered and a charge-sheet was filed against the driver under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC. The Claims Tribunal held the driver, owner and insurer liable and awarded ₹1,62,970 with interest at 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. The claimant appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement of compensation for medical expenses, future treatment, transportation, pain and suffering, attendant charges, nutritious diet and disability-related consequences.

Whether the compensation of ₹1,62,970 awarded by the Claims Tribunal constituted just and reasonable compensation in light of the injuries, surgeries and treatment undergone by the appellant.

Whether the appellant was entitled to enhancement under the heads of medical expenses, transportation, pain and suffering, attendant charges, nutritious diet and future treatment expenses.

Whether the Tribunal’s assessment disclosed any perversity, material error or inadequacy warranting appellate interference under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Court applied Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, governing appeals against awards of the Claims Tribunal, in the context of a claim under Sections 166 and 140 of the Act.

The governing principle is that compensation in motor accident claims must be “just and proper”—neither a meagre amount nor a bonanza—and must be determined on the basis of evidence establishing the claimant’s actual loss, expenditure and entitlement.

Enhancement cannot be granted merely because a higher amount has been claimed; the claimant must substantiate the additional compensation sought under each head through credible evidence.

Appellate interference is warranted only where the Tribunal’s assessment is shown to be erroneous, perverse, arbitrary or contrary to the evidence.

The Court found that the Tribunal had considered the medical evidence, treatment documents and medical bills relating to the appellant’s injuries and surgeries. No specific medical expenditure was shown to have been wrongly excluded.

Although transportation documents and railway tickets were produced, the person who issued the transportation bill was not examined; therefore, the Tribunal’s lump-sum award of ₹10,000 under that head was held reasonable.

The award of ₹50,000 for pain and suffering adequately reflected the fracture, surgery and period of treatment.

The further award of ₹10,000 towards attendant charges and nutritious diet was not shown to be inadequate in the absence of proof of specific additional expenditure.

The claim for ₹3 lakh towards future treatment was unsupported by credible documentary or other evidence and could not be allowed merely on assertion.

Since the Tribunal’s findings were based on the evidence and no perversity or material error was established, the Court declined to reassess or enhance the compensation.

The appellant failed to establish entitlement to any further amount under the claimed heads. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed for want of merit.