Motor accident compensation must be enhanced where disability and multiple surgeries render the award inadequate.

The claimant appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Tribunal’s award of ₹2,09,520 with 9% annual interest for injuries sustained in a road accident.

The Tribunal assessed the claimant’s monthly income at ₹3,000, whole-body disability at 12%, and future loss of earnings using a multiplier of 11.

The claimant sought enhancement; the accident-related facts and the insurers’ liability were not disputed in the appeal.

1. Whether the claimant was entitled to enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal

2. Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of disability and compensation adequately reflected the claimant’s injuries and resulting loss

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

The Court applied the Act’s beneficial-object principle and the requirement to award just and fair compensation, assessed liberally and on a realistic basis, while taking a holistic view of the loss sustained.

The Court considered that the Tribunal had assessed whole-body disability at 12%, although the medical certificate recorded 18%, and observed that the claimant had undergone six surgeries but received only ₹25,000 for pain, shock and suffering.

Taking account of the claimant’s age of 51, his agricultural work, and his continued ability to work after recovery, the Court found that additional compensation was warranted.

It awarded a further ₹1,00,480 as global compensation.

The insurers were directed to deposit their respective shares of the enhanced compensation, together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition until realization, within eight weeks; interest on the enhanced amount was excluded for the 738-day delay in filing the appeal.

The Tribunal’s apportionment of liability—90% to Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. and 10% to Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.—was maintained, and the Tribunal was directed to disburse the awarded amount in accordance with the order.