Compensation need not be enhanced absent evidence of permanent functional disability or earning loss.

On 01.11.2018, the appellant was travelling on a motorcycle near the mosque at Chilhati when the offending Hywa vehicle, allegedly driven rashly and negligently by Respondent No. 1, collided with him and the motorcycle.

The appellant sustained multiple injuries, including loss/fracture of teeth and fractures to two fingers of his left hand; he remained hospitalised for approximately seven days. The motorcycle rider, Taresh Yadav, died in the accident.

The appellant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking ₹5,70,000 as compensation. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded ₹1,12,130 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing until payment.

The appellant challenged the award under Section 173 of the Act, seeking enhancement under various heads, including loss of income, attendant charges, conveyance, nutritious food, pain and suffering, and medical expenses.

Whether the compensation of ₹1,12,130 awarded by the Tribunal was inadequate and required enhancement in light of the appellant’s injuries, hospitalisation, medical expenses, loss of income, and other claimed heads

Whether the Tribunal’s award disclosed any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by the High Court in an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

The Court applied Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which enables a claimant injured in a motor accident to seek compensation on the basis of fault, and Section 173, which provides for an appeal against an award of the Claims Tribunal.

The governing principle was that compensation must be just and fair, assessed on the basis of the injuries proved, treatment undergone, and the evidence establishing actual loss or disability.

The Court further accepted that enhancement would not be warranted in the absence of sufficient evidence showing permanent functional disability, loss of earning capacity, or other grievous consequences of the injuries.

The Court examined the Tribunal’s finding that the appellant had suffered fractures to two fingers of his left hand and had remained hospitalised for seven days.

It noted that the record did not establish permanent functional disability, permanent loss of earning capacity, or any serious or grievous consequence beyond the proved injuries.

Although the appellant claimed additional amounts for loss of income, attendant charges, conveyance, nutritious food, pain and suffering, and medical expenses, the Court held that the Tribunal had adequately assessed the compensation in light of the evidence available.

Since the award of ₹1,12,130 was found to be just and proper, no ground for appellate enhancement or interference was made out.

The appeal seeking enhancement of compensation was accordingly dismissed.

The award of ₹1,12,130 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until actual payment was left undisturbed.