Compensation was not excessive given the proven injuries, medical expenses, and permanent disability.

The claimant, a practising advocate, sought compensation for injuries sustained when his car swerved to avoid a child crossing the road, struck a small bridge and overturned.

He alleged that the resulting injuries, including a fracture and permanent disability to his right leg, affected his professional work.

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.1,50,000 with interest at 9% per annum.

The insurer appealed, disputing liability on the ground that the claimant owned the vehicle and contending that the compensation was excessive.

The claimant died during the appeal, and his legal representatives were brought on record.

Whether the insurer established any ground warranting interference with the Tribunal’s award, including its challenge to liability and the amount of compensation.

The appeal was brought under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

It applies the general appellate inquiry whether the appellant has shown a basis to interfere with the Tribunal’s award, assessing the compensation against the evidence of injury, treatment, medical expenses and permanent disability.

The Court found that the claimant’s injuries and treatment, medical expenses and 18% permanent disability were supported by the evidence.

It also considered the disability’s bearing on the claimant’s work as a practising advocate and concluded that the award was not excessive; in its view, it was low.

The judgment does not separately analyse the insurer’s contention that the claimant’s ownership of the vehicle defeated liability.

It also contains an apparent inconsistency: the Tribunal’s award table records Rs.1,00,000 for injuries, while paragraph 7.2 refers to an award of only Rs.10,000 in that respect.

There was no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.