Madhya Pradesh High CourtCivil LawCivil Procedure and Evidence

MP HC Adds ₹60,000 For Truck-Crash Claimant’s Pain And Suffering, With Interest On The Increase Only From 2024 Court-Fee Deposit

Mohd. Naieem Khanv.Mahoob Khan

MP HC Adds ₹60,000 For Truck-Crash Claimant’s Pain And Suffering, With Interest On The Increase Only From 2024 Court-Fee Deposit. Mohd. Naieem Khan vs Mahoob Khan. Madhya Pradesh High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of compensation required interference, including whether the award for pain and suffering should be enhanced.

The court held

The appeal was partly allowed.

It also directed

Total compensation was enhanced from Rs.2,30,000 to Rs.2,90,000, with interest at 6% per annum on the additional Rs.60,000 from 22 December 2024 until realization.

The original award’s interest on Rs.2,30,000, and the remaining findings and directions, were left undisturbed.

01Facts

On 16 January 2009, the appellant was injured when the truck in which he was travelling overturned.

¶ 3–4

He sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

¶ 4

The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.2,30,000 with interest at 6% per annum from 16 March 2009, assessing permanent disability at 25%.

¶ 3–4, 7

The appellant appealed, seeking enhancement, and the High Court allowed his application to amend the appeal valuation from Rs.14,20,000 to Rs.1,50,000 and take court fee of Rs.3,750 on record.

¶ 2

The requisite court fee was deposited on 22 December 2024.

¶ 10

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of compensation required interference, including whether the award for pain and suffering should be enhanced.

¶ 7–9

ii.2. Whether interest on the enhanced compensation should run from the date of the claim petition or from the date the requisite court fee was deposited.

¶ 10–11

03Law Applied

Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, provides for an appeal against an award of the Claims Tribunal.

¶ 3

The Court also considered the compensation claim arising under Section 166 of that Act.

¶ 4

It stated that interest on enhanced compensation is ordinarily awarded from the date of filing the claim petition; however, where delay in payment of requisite court fee is attributable to the claimant, interest on the enhanced amount may be restricted to the date of that payment.

¶ 10

The Court addressed the applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, allowing the former and permitting amendment of the appeal valuation.

¶ 1–2

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Limitation Act, 1963 Section 5

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173Section 166

04Reasoning

The Court found no sufficient reason to disturb the Tribunal’s findings on income, loss of income, permanent disability, or the other components of compensation.

¶ 7

However, given the grievous injuries to both knees and toes and two hospitalizations, it considered the award for pain and suffering inadequate and added Rs.60,000 under that head.

¶ 8–9

Although interest on enhanced compensation would ordinarily run from the claim-petition date, the appellant had deposited the requisite court fee on the amended valuation only on 22 December 2024.

¶ 10–11

The Court therefore limited interest on the enhancement to that date, while leaving the Tribunal’s interest award on the original compensation unchanged.

¶ 10–11

05Holding

The appeal was partly allowed.

¶ 9–13

Total compensation was enhanced from Rs.2,30,000 to Rs.2,90,000, with interest at 6% per annum on the additional Rs.60,000 from 22 December 2024 until realization.

¶ 9–13

The original award’s interest on Rs.2,30,000, and the remaining findings and directions, were left undisturbed.

¶ 9–13
Madhya Pradesh High Court

Original Court PDF

Mohd. Naieem KhanvsMahoob Khan

Madhya Pradesh High Court · October 29, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment