Inadequate injury-compensation assessments must be enhanced to ensure just compensation.

The claimant appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jetpur’s award dated 11 March 2016 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 287 of 2012 (Old No. 386 of 2009).

The claimant sought enhancement, contending that the Tribunal had inadequately assessed compensation under several heads. The Insurance Company opposed the appeal.

The vehicle-accident facts and the owner’s and insurer’s liability were not disputed in the appeal.

Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of compensation was inadequate and required enhancement to provide just compensation.

Whether the claimant was entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation and consequential directions for deposit and disbursement.

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

The Court applied the principle that compensation under the Act must be just, fair, reasonable, and equitable, assessed holistically and pragmatically; exact mathematical restoration is not possible, but the Tribunal must endeavour to compensate the injured person for the loss sustained.

The judgment cites no specific precedent.

The Court considered the parties’ submissions, the Tribunal record, and the impugned award, and concluded that the Tribunal had erred in assessing compensation.

It reassessed the award as ₹6,72,000 for future loss of income, ₹96,000 for actual loss of income, ₹75,000 for pain, shock and suffering, ₹80,000 for medical expenses, and ₹75,000 for special diet, attendant charges, and transportation, totalling ₹9,18,000. After deducting the ₹4,02,084 already awarded, it determined that an additional ₹5,15,916 was payable.

The Court directed the Insurance Company to deposit the enhanced compensation of ₹5,15,916, with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition until realisation, within eight weeks of receiving the order. The Tribunal was directed to disburse the amount in accordance with the prescribed procedure, subject to deduction of any unpaid court fees; the Tribunal’s remaining directions were left undisturbed.