Enhancement of compensation for non-pecuniary heads including pain, suffering, transportation, and loss of amenities.

The appellant, Harsh Kumar (a minor at the time of the incident), sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident on December 17, 2016.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) passed an award on May 17, 2019, granting a total compensation of ₹17,000.

Dissatisfied with the quantum, the appellant moved the High Court of Chhattisgarh seeking enhancement, arguing that the Tribunal failed to award costs for transportation, future treatment, and loss of amenities, while awarding insufficient amounts for pain, suffering, diet, and assistance.

1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal was just and proper or required enhancement based on the nature of injuries and established legal principles.

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

The Court further relied on the principles of "just compensation" and standardized conventional heads established by the Supreme Court of India in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) regarding future prospects and conventional heads, Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors. (2009) regarding the methodology of computation, and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. (2018) regarding the award of compensation under non-pecuniary heads like loss of amenities.

The Court observed that the Tribunal's award of ₹17,000 was inadequate given the facts of the accident.

Specifically, the Court noted that the Tribunal had completely omitted compensation for "Transportation," "Future Treatment," and "Loss of Amenities".

Applying the precedents mentioned above, the Court re-evaluated the heads of claim: it maintained the medical bills at ₹5,000 but significantly increased "Pain and Suffering and Healthy Diet" from ₹10,000 to ₹35,000, and "Assistance" from ₹1,800 to ₹10,000. Furthermore, the Court introduced ₹10,000 each for transportation, future treatment, and loss of amenities to ensure the compensation was "just" in light of the injuries sustained.

Consequently, the respondent (Insurance Company) was ordered to pay an additional amount of ₹63,000 (beyond the original ₹17,000) with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the claim application until realization. The appeal was allowed in part, and the Tribunal's award was modified accordingly.