Injury claimant awarded ₹2.25 lakh global compensation for 10% whole-body disability.

The appellant-claimant sustained injuries in a motor-vehicle accident and filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, being MACP No. 381 of 2002 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Junagadh.

The Tribunal awarded compensation of ₹1,86,260 against the opponents. The claimant contended that the amount was inadequate and preferred an appeal under Section 173 of the Act.

The accident, involvement of the vehicle, and liability of the owner and insurer were not disputed by the Insurance Company.

The claimant’s disability certificate recorded 10% disability of the whole body and noted multiple facial and forearm scars, including a scar extending from the right eye towards the mid-frontal region and other scars over the forehead, nose, and right forearm.

Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was inadequate and required enhancement under the principle of just and fair compensation?

Whether, considering the nature of the injuries and the recorded disability, the claimant was entitled to global compensation of ₹2,25,000?

The Court applied Sections 166 and 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Section 166 provides the basis for claiming compensation for injuries arising from a motor accident, while Section 173 enables an appeal against the Tribunal’s award.

The Court reiterated that the Motor Vehicles Act is beneficial legislation and that compensation must be “just,” fair, reasonable, equitable, and based on a realistic and liberal assessment of the claimant’s loss.

The Tribunal and appellate court must endeavour to compensate the injured claimant comprehensively, without adopting a niggardly approach, while ensuring that the award remains just and not excessive.

Since the accident and the liability of the owner and insurer were not in dispute, the Court confined its consideration to the adequacy of compensation.

It examined the disability certificate, which recorded 10% whole-body disability and multiple permanent scars on the claimant’s face, forehead, nose, and right forearm.

Applying the beneficial and restorative purpose of the Motor Vehicles Act and the requirement to award realistic compensation for the overall consequences of the injuries, the Court held that this was a fit case for awarding global compensation.

It assessed the claimant’s total entitlement at ₹2,25,000, thereby enhancing the Tribunal’s award by ₹38,740.

The claimant was held entitled to total compensation of ₹2,25,000, with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization.

Since the Tribunal had already awarded ₹1,86,260, the Insurance Company was directed to deposit the enhanced amount of ₹38,740 before the concerned Tribunal within eight weeks of receiving the order.

Upon deposit, the Tribunal was directed to disburse the entire awarded amount, including any amount lying in fixed deposit or with the Tribunal and accrued interest, after due verification and procedure.

Applicable court fees were to be deducted, and the record was directed to be returned to the Tribunal.