Motor accident compensation must include treatment-period income loss, future treatment costs, and functional difficulties.

On 16 November 2017, Sanjay Kumar was riding a motorcycle near Parking No. 2, Gold Flake, Raipur, when a vehicle bearing registration no. CG-15-AS-3118, allegedly driven rashly and negligently by Ashok Yadav, collided with him. Sanjay suffered head injuries, injuries to both legs, a fracture in his right hand, and other bodily injuries. Crime No. 551/2017 was registered at Police Station Khamtarai, Raipur.

Sanjay filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, awarded ₹6,86,100 with interest at 7% per annum, assessing his permanent functional disability at 20% and applying a multiplier of 16. The award included ₹5,37,600 for loss of future income, ₹1,00,000 for pain and suffering, ₹30,000 for special diet, attendant and conveyance expenses, and ₹18,488 towards medical expenses. Sanjay appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking enhancement of compensation.

Whether the Tribunal erred in assessing the claimant’s permanent functional disability at 20% instead of 40%, as stated in the disability certificate?

Whether the claimant was entitled to enhanced compensation for medical expenses, loss of income during treatment, future medical treatment, and difficulties in performing daily work?

Whether the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal was just and reasonable under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988?

The Court applied Sections 166 and 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Section 166 provides the mechanism for seeking compensation for injuries arising from a motor accident, while Section 173 permits an appeal against the Tribunal’s award.

The governing principle is that compensation must be “just”—neither so low as to fail to compensate the claimant for the actual loss nor so excessive as to confer an unjust enrichment.

Assessment of loss of future earning capacity must be based on the claimant’s functional disability, occupation, proved income, future prospects, and the appropriate multiplier. Compensation may also be awarded under reasonable heads including medical expenses, loss of income during treatment, future medical expenses, pain and suffering, special diet, conveyance and attendant charges, and loss arising from difficulty in performing daily activities.

No specific precedent was cited in the judgment.

The Court upheld the Tribunal’s assessment of monthly income at ₹10,000 because the claimant produced no clear documentary evidence of income, although he was working as a vehicle driver and possessed a driving licence.

The Tribunal had already added 40% towards future prospects and applied a 20% loss of earning capacity with a multiplier of 16, resulting in ₹5,37,600 for loss of future income.

The Court declined to enhance the disability assessment to 40%. Although the claimant relied on a disability certificate issued by Dr. Santosh Chaudhary, the doctor was an orthopaedic surgeon from Kheri, Uttar Pradesh, had not treated or operated on the claimant, had not examined relevant prior treatment records or X-rays, and admitted that the certificate contained no clear description of the affected limb or the basis of assessment. The Court therefore found no error in relying on 20% functional disability.

However, the Court found the award inadequate under certain non-pecuniary and incidental heads. Medical and treatment expenses were increased from ₹18,488 to ₹25,000, recognising that some treatment-related expenditure may not be supported by preserved receipts.

Since the claimant remained unable to work for a period during treatment, ₹40,000 was awarded for loss of income during treatment.

A further ₹40,000 was awarded for probable future medical treatment and ₹40,000 for difficulty in performing daily work and activities. The existing awards for loss of future income, pain and suffering, and special diet, conveyance and attendant expenses were maintained.

The total compensation was enhanced from ₹6,86,100 to ₹8,12,600, resulting in an additional award of ₹1,26,500.

The additional amount was directed to carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application until actual payment, and the Tribunal’s award was modified accordingly.

The Registry was directed to notify the claimant regarding the additional compensation and return the record to the Tribunal for necessary compliance.