Motor accident compensation may be enhanced on appeal by a consensual lump-sum award.

The claimant appealed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the compensation awarded for injuries sustained in a motor accident.

The Tribunal had awarded her ₹22,000 with interest at 7% per annum from the date of filing the claim, and the insurer had already satisfied that award.

The award also permitted the insurer to recover the amount from the vehicle owner.

The claimant sought enhancement, contending that she had received no compensation for loss of income during treatment and that the amount for pain and suffering was inadequate.

The owner had not contested the claim before the Tribunal, and notice to him in the appeal was dispensed with.

Whether the claimant was entitled to enhanced compensation for the injuries sustained, including for loss of income during treatment and pain and suffering

Whether the appeal should be disposed of by awarding an additional consolidated sum of ₹50,000, as proposed by the Court and accepted by the claimant

The appeal was brought under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which provides for an appeal against an award of a Claims Tribunal.

The Court also referred to Order XLI, Rule 14(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure to dispense with notice to the owner, who had not contested the claim before the Tribunal.

In resolving the compensation appeal, the Court cited Taslim Parvin & Another v. (Smt.) Usha Devi & Another, 2018(2) TAC 22 (SC), as relevant to its consideration of the consensual resolution.

The judgment does not set out a specific compensation formula or a detailed rule derived from that precedent.

The claimant challenged the adequacy of the award on the grounds that it did not compensate her for loss of income during treatment and provided too little for pain and suffering.

Following discussion with counsel, the Court proposed an additional consolidated award of ₹50,000.

The claimant expressly accepted that proposal, while the insurer did not oppose it and left the matter to the Court’s discretion.

In light of that position and the cited Supreme Court decision, the Court concluded that an additional lump sum would best serve the interests of justice, without disturbing the insurer’s recovery right under the original award.

The enhanced amount, if deposited, was to be disbursed to the claimant in cash.

The original recovery right was not disturbed, and proper court fee on the appeal’s valuation was directed to be realized from the claimant.