Injury compensation must include loss of amenities alongside pecuniary losses and pain and suffering.

The appellant, Ghanshyam Gupta, suffered grievous injuries in a motor-vehicle accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of Jeep No. RJ-02-C/3174. The vehicle was owned by one of the respondents and insured with the respondent-insurer.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon, awarded the appellant ₹2,18,000 with interest at 9% per annum under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for permanent disability and other losses arising from the accident.

The appellant suffered a fracture of the left femur, shortening of the left leg by 2½ inches, and mild restriction of movement of the left knee, resulting in 25% permanent disability.

The Tribunal awarded compensation for loss of income due to permanent disability, pain and suffering, treatment expenses, loss of income during treatment, and special diet, transportation and attendant expenses.

The appellant appealed seeking enhancement.

As the court and Tribunal records had been destroyed in a fire, the appeal was decided on the basis of the facts and evidence recorded in the impugned award.

1. Whether the compensation of ₹2,18,000 awarded by the Tribunal was just and adequate in view of the appellant’s injuries, permanent disability and consequential losses?

2. Whether the appellant was entitled to enhanced compensation under the heads of pain and suffering, loss of income, treatment-related expenses, attendant, transportation and nutritious diet expenses, and loss of amenities?

3. Whether the enhanced compensation was payable by respondents Nos. 1 to 3 jointly and severally with interest?

The court applied Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, under which an injured claimant is entitled to just compensation for injuries caused by a motor accident resulting from rash and negligent driving.

It relied on the principle that compensation must be fair, reasonable and equitable, and should place the injured person, as far as money can, in the position in which he would have been had the accident not occurred.

Relying on G. Ravindranath @ R. Chowdary v. E. Srinivas, 2013 (3) RCR (Civil) 934, the court recognised pecuniary heads including treatment expenses, loss of earnings during treatment, loss of future earnings due to permanent disability and future medical expenses, as well as non-pecuniary heads including pain and suffering, loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life.

The court also considered the principles referred to in Sanjay Verma v. Haryana Roadways, 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 914, and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, in assessing compensation.

The finding that the accident resulted from rash and negligent driving and that the offending vehicle was insured was not challenged by the respondents and was therefore affirmed.

On the medical evidence, the court found that the appellant had sustained grievous injuries, undergone surgical treatment and suffered 25% permanent disability involving shortening of the leg and restricted knee movement.

The court enhanced pain and suffering from ₹20,000 to ₹40,000 because of the severity and prolonged nature of the injuries.

Although the appellant claimed higher earnings, the court assessed the effect of the disability on his managerial contribution to the family business and enhanced compensation for loss of income due to permanent disability from ₹85,000 to ₹1,25,000.

Considering a five-month treatment and recovery period, loss of income during treatment was enhanced to ₹15,000.

The court separately assessed ₹7,500 for nutritious diet, ₹10,000 for an attendant and ₹7,500 for transportation, totalling ₹25,000 under those heads.

In view of prolonged treatment in multiple hospitals and likely physiotherapy expenses, treatment expenses were enhanced from ₹93,000 to ₹1,25,000.

The permanent shortening of the leg, limp, inability to lift weight and resulting restrictions in daily life justified a further award of ₹50,000 for loss of amenities.

The total just compensation was consequently reassessed at ₹3,80,000.

The court enhanced the total compensation from ₹2,18,000 to ₹3,80,000, thereby granting an enhancement of ₹1,62,000 over the Tribunal’s award.

The enhanced amount was made payable by respondents Nos. 1 to 3 jointly and severally, together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, namely 24 September 2002, until realization.

The Registry was directed to email the authenticated award to the respondent-insurance company, which was required to comply with the directions in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, decided on 16 March 2021.