Just compensation may be awarded globally where disability-based mathematical assessment would be inadequate.

On 28 April 2004, the claimant was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle from Modasa to village Butal when another motorcycle allegedly approached at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and collided with it near village Rahiyol.

The claimant sustained injuries, including a fracture of the shaft of the right femur and injuries to the fingers of the right leg, and remained hospitalised for 19 days.

An FIR was registered at Dhansura Police Station.

The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of ₹2,00,000.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal assessed his monthly income at ₹2,000, accepted 15% functional disability on the basis of his Pursis, and awarded ₹1,29,100 with interest at 7.5% per annum.

The claimant appealed under Section 173 of the Act, contending that his income should have been assessed at ₹6,000 per month, relying on his vehicle registration certificate and heavy-vehicle driving licence.

Whether the Tribunal erred in assessing the claimant’s monthly income at ₹2,000 despite evidence showing that he owned a Tata heavy vehicle and held a licence to drive heavy vehicles.

Whether the claimant was entitled to enhancement of compensation beyond ₹1,29,100, and if so, to what amount.

Whether the enhanced compensation was payable with interest and jointly and severally by the opponents.

The Court exercised appellate jurisdiction under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in relation to a claim under Section 166.

Compensation in motor accident cases must be just, fair and adequate, and should neither be a bounty nor a pittance.

In assessing earning capacity, relevant documentary evidence, including ownership of a heavy vehicle and a licence authorising the claimant to drive such vehicles, must be considered.

The Court relied upon Minu Rout v. Satya Pradyumna Mohapatra, 2013 (10) SCC 695, in support of the assessment of income on the basis of the available evidence.

The Court also recognised that compensation need not be calculated mechanically or solely by applying the percentage of permanent physical or functional disability.

The Court found that the Tribunal had ignored the claimant’s driving licence and the registration certificate relating to his Tata heavy vehicle, and therefore had committed a manifest error in fixing his monthly income at ₹2,000.

Although the claimant sought assessment of income at ₹6,000 per month, the Court did not undertake a purely mathematical recalculation based only on disability.

It considered the nature of the injuries, particularly the fracture of the right femur, the injuries to the right-leg fingers, and the claimant’s 19-day hospitalisation.

Applying the principle of just, fair and adequate compensation, and considering the overall circumstances, the Court determined that a global award of ₹2,50,000 was appropriate.

The total compensation was enhanced from ₹1,29,100 to ₹2,50,000.

Accordingly, the claimant was awarded an enhanced amount of ₹1,20,900, being the difference between the enhanced award and the Tribunal’s award, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition until realization, payable jointly and severally by the opponents.

The concerned Insurance Company was directed to deposit its share of the enhanced amount with accrued interest within eight weeks.

The Tribunal was directed to disburse the amount lying with it, subject to verification, procedural compliance and deduction of court fees, if payable.