Courts may award compensation exceeding the amount claimed to ensure the grant of just compensation.

The appellant, a 42-year-old mason, sustained severe injuries resulting in the amputation of his left leg above the ankle after being hit by a car (Reg. No. CG-06-GV-8838) driven rashly by Respondent No. 1 on March 5, 2023.

The IV Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Bilaspur, awarded a compensation of ₹10,18,280/- with 9% interest, assessing functional disability at 60% and monthly income at ₹9,000/-.

The appellant challenged this award before the High Court seeking enhancement of compensation, arguing that the income and functional disability were assessed on the lower side.

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in assessing the monthly income and whether the court can grant compensation exceeding the amount claimed in the application.

2. Whether the assessment of 60% functional disability and the compensation under conventional heads require enhancement.

The Court applied Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 regarding appeals.

The precedent of Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh Ors. (AIR 2003 SCC 674) established that Tribunals and Courts are duty-bound to award "just compensation" and possess the power to grant an amount higher than what was specifically claimed by the applicant if the facts warrant such an increase.

The court utilized the "Multiplier Method" to calculate the loss of future earning capacity.

The Court observed that although the appellant pleaded an income of ₹9,000/- per month, he was a mason working near the capital city of Raipur, where earning potential is higher; thus, per Nagappa, the Court enhanced the monthly income to ₹12,000/- to ensure "just compensation".

Regarding disability, the Court upheld the Tribunal’s finding of 60% functional disability, noting that while an artificial limb was provided, the amputation significantly hindered his earning capacity as a mason.

The Court further added 25% for "future prospects" to the income and applied a multiplier of 14 based on the appellant’s age (42). It also found the awards for "Pain and Suffering," "Loss of Amenities," and "Attendant Charges" to be insufficient and revised them upward to reflect the gravity of permanent disablement.

The Insurance Company (Respondent No. 3) was directed to deposit the enhanced amount with 6% interest from the date of filing the appeal (March 27, 2025) within 60 days, with 80% to be placed in a fixed deposit for three years and 20% paid directly to the appellant.