Compensation for spinal fracture must include treatment-period income loss and future medical expenses despite no permanent disability.

The appellant/claimant, Lalluram Yadav, sustained injuries in a road accident on 29 July 2021, including a fracture of the spinal cord. He remained hospitalised for five days but did not suffer permanent disability.

The 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar, awarded him total compensation of ₹98,883 under the heads of treatment, mental trauma and pain and suffering, attendant and nutritious diet, and transportation, but awarded nothing for loss of income during treatment or future medical treatment. The claimant preferred an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement of compensation.

Whether the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal required enhancement on account of loss of income during the treatment period and the claimant’s future medical treatment?

Whether the amount awarded towards medical expenses was just and proper in view of the claimant’s spinal injury and the difficulty of preserving all medical bills?

The Court applied Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which permits an aggrieved party to appeal against an award of a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

The governing principle was that compensation under the Act must be just and reasonable, and may include amounts for actual medical expenses, pain and suffering, attendant and diet expenses, transportation, loss of income during treatment, and reasonably foreseeable future medical treatment. The Court also applied the principle that the absence of permanent disability does not bar compensation for temporary loss of income, pain and suffering, or future treatment needs arising from the injuries.

The Court found that although the claimant had no permanent disability, he had sustained a spinal cord fracture and had remained hospitalised for five days. In light of the nature of the injury and the treatment period, the Tribunal’s failure to award compensation for loss of income during treatment was unjustified; ₹15,000 was therefore awarded under that head.

The Court further considered ₹10,000 reasonable for future treatment. Since all medical bills may not be preserved, the medical-expense award was increased from ₹32,583 to ₹35,000. The other awards—₹25,000 for mental trauma and pain and suffering, ₹20,000 for attendant and nutritious diet, and ₹21,300 for transportation—were maintained.

The enhanced amount was directed to carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application until realization. The remaining terms of the Tribunal’s award were left undisturbed, and the Registry was directed to communicate the enhanced amount to the claimants in Hindi Devanagari, with assistance from paralegal workers where necessary.