Compensation for pain, suffering, and future treatment may be enhanced where medical evidence establishes grievous injuries and continuing needs.

On 28 June 2019, the appellant, Vinay Yadav, was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle when the motorcycle allegedly collided with motorcycle No. C.G.-10-AL-1049, driven by respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner.

The collision caused the death of the motorcycle rider, Harsh @ Anshu Mahant, and grievous injuries to the appellant, including head, leg and wrist injuries.

The appellant was hospitalised from 28 June 2019 to 10 July 2019 and underwent surgery involving insertion of a plate.

He filed a claim petition seeking compensation of ₹8,50,000.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded ₹1,96,620 under various heads, including loss of income, attendant charges, medical expenses, pain and suffering, and future treatment.

The appellant challenged the award under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement of compensation.

Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was inadequate and required enhancement under the facts and evidence of the case?

Whether the appellant was entitled to enhanced amounts towards pain and suffering and future medical treatment despite the Tribunal’s refusal to award compensation for permanent disability?

Whether the findings regarding the appellant’s income, loss of income during treatment, medical expenses, and liability of the insurer required interference?

The Court applied Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, governing appeals against awards of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

Compensation in motor accident claims must be just and reasonable, assessed on the basis of the injuries suffered, treatment undertaken, proved medical expenses, loss of income, pain and suffering, and reasonably anticipated future treatment expenses.

The claimant bears the evidentiary burden of establishing income and permanent disability; in the absence of documentary proof of income, the Court may assess income on the basis of the applicable category of work, while a claim for permanent disability requires supporting medical evidence.

The insurer remains liable where no breach of the insurance policy is established.

The Court upheld the Tribunal’s assessment of the appellant’s monthly income at ₹8,660, treating him as an unskilled labourer because he had pleaded that he was an eleventh-class student and had produced no documentary evidence of employment or income.

It also affirmed the award of ₹34,640 for four months’ loss of income and ₹1,21,980 towards medical expenses, noting the appellant’s 12-day hospitalisation and the medical bills and prescriptions produced in evidence.

The Tribunal’s refusal to award compensation for permanent disability was not disturbed because no disability certificate or other proof establishing permanent impairment had been produced.

However, considering the grievous injuries, immediate surgery, continuing physical pain and mental agony, and the medical evidence indicating the likelihood of future treatment expenses, the Court found the amounts awarded under those two heads inadequate.

It therefore enhanced pain and suffering from ₹5,000 to ₹20,000 and future treatment expenses from ₹5,000 to ₹20,000.

The total compensation was enhanced from ₹1,96,620 to ₹2,26,620, resulting in an additional award of ₹30,000 to the appellant.

The additional amount was directed to carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application until realisation.

The remaining terms and conditions of the Tribunal’s award were left undisturbed.