Motor accident compensation must be recalculated under settled principles to ensure just and fair compensation.

The original claimants appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Banaskantha at Deesa’s award dated 25 September 2025 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 194 of 2014.

They challenged the quantum of compensation. The High Court noted that the accident-related facts and the owner’s and insurers’ liability were not disputed. The Tribunal’s apportionment of negligence—60% and 40% between the vehicles insured by respondent Nos. 2 and 4—was also before the Court

Whether the Tribunal erred in assessing compensation and whether the claimants were entitled to enhancement

Whether the Tribunal’s apportionment of negligence between the two insured vehicles should be disturbed

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for an appeal against an award of a Claims Tribunal. The Court treated the Motor Vehicles Act as beneficial legislation requiring just and fair compensation, assessed on principles of fairness, reasonableness and equity; the Tribunal must endeavour to award just compensation

It relied on National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, in recalculating compensation in accordance with the applicable principles, including future prospects and the relevant conventional heads

The Court accepted that the Tribunal had erred in assessing compensation and independently recalculated it, applying a 40% addition for future prospects to the deceased’s monthly income of Rs. 6,100, deducting one-fourth for personal expenses, and applying a multiplier of 15. It also assessed consortium for five dependants, loss of estate and funeral expenses

The Court did not find a basis to alter the Tribunal’s 60:40 negligence apportionment and maintained it. The judgment’s stated total and additional award appear not to reconcile arithmetically with the listed component amounts

The Court directed the Insurance Company to deposit the enhanced amount within eight weeks of receiving the order. The 60:40 negligence apportionment and the Tribunal’s other directions were maintained. The Tribunal was directed to disburse the amounts held by it, subject to verification, due procedure and deduction of unpaid court fees, if applicable