Compensation may be enhanced for injuries and treatment needs despite unquantified permanent disability.

On 13 December 2020, the appellant/claimant was riding his motorcycle from Lingoda to Agar when a Maruti car bearing registration No. MP-09-WF-4326, allegedly driven rashly and negligently, struck him near Tanodiya. He suffered multiple grievous injuries, including injuries to his right elbow, femur and tibia, and remained hospitalised from 13 December 2020 to 18 December 2020.

He filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ujjain, seeking compensation of ₹5,00,000.

The Tribunal awarded compensation, although the judgment contains an internal discrepancy: paragraph 1 refers to an award of ₹41,000, whereas paragraph 6 records the Tribunal’s award as ₹2,45,252.

The claimant appealed seeking enhancement, particularly on account of alleged permanent disability, pain and suffering, attendant expenses, loss of income during treatment and future medical expenses.

Whether the appellant established permanent functional disability warranting a separate award of compensation?

Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was inadequate under the heads of loss of income during treatment, pain and suffering, attendant expenses and future treatment expenses?

Whether the appellant was entitled to enhancement of compensation and, if so, to what extent?

The Court applied the principle under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 that a claimant in a motor accident case is entitled to just and reasonable compensation for injuries and their proved consequences.

Compensation may include amounts for permanent disability, loss of income during treatment, pain and suffering, attendant expenses, medical expenses and future treatment, but a disability certificate must establish the nature and extent of disability, including its functional impact and, where relevant, the percentage of disability in relation to the whole body.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was expressly cited in the judgment.

The Court examined the evidence of Dr. Vivek Jain (AW-2) and the disability certificate, which recorded 55.25% disability in the appellant’s right leg.

However, the doctor did not state that the appellant suffered restricted movement or shortening of the leg, nor did he specify the percentage of disability in relation to the whole body.

Accordingly, the Court held that permanent disability had not been clearly established so as to justify a distinct disability-based calculation.

Nevertheless, considering the claimant’s multiple injuries, operative treatment and treatment expenses, the Court found that the Tribunal had inadequately assessed compensation under loss of income during treatment, pain and suffering, attendant expenses and future treatment.

It therefore awarded a consolidated enhancement of ₹2,55,000 as just and proper compensation.

The Court enhanced the compensation by ₹2,55,000, determining the total compensation as ₹5,00,252, as against the Tribunal’s figure of ₹2,45,252 recorded in paragraph 6 of the judgment.

The appellant was directed to pay any additional court fee within 30 days; interest on the enhanced amount would not be payable beyond that period if the requisite court fee was not paid in time.

All other terms and conditions of the Tribunal’s award were maintained, and the record was directed to be transmitted to the concerned Claims Tribunal.