Non-pecuniary damages enhanced for pain and loss of amenities despite upholding functional disability assessment.

The appellant, a 37-year-old self-employed individual earning Rs. 15,000 per month, sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident on September 25, 2014, when his car struck a truck moving ahead.

The appellant suffered post-traumatic left-side hemiparesis, resulting in a certified 60% permanent physical disability, rendering him partially dependent on others for mobility.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), via an award dated August 23, 2025, assessed his functional disability at 50% and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 26,16,867 with 9% interest.

The appellant filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation, contending that his functional disability should be treated as 100% and that non-pecuniary damages were inadequate.

1. Whether the functional disability of the appellant ought to be enhanced from 50% to 100% for the purpose of computing loss of earning capacity.

2. Whether the compensation awarded under non-pecuniary heads, specifically "pain and suffering" and "loss of amenities of life," was adequate given the nature of the injuries.

The Court applied the principles of compensatory jurisprudence under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, regarding the assessment of functional disability versus physical disability for self-employed individuals.

It further relied on the legal standards for awarding non-pecuniary damages, which mandate that compensation for "pain and suffering" and "loss of amenities" must be just and commensurate with the victim’s long-term physical limitations and loss of quality of life.

Regarding functional disability, the Court reviewed the testimony of PW-6 (Dr. Pravendra Singh), who confirmed a 60% permanent disability in the left side of the body.

Although the appellant argued for a 100% assessment due to his dependence on others for mobility, the Court found the MACT’s assessment of 50% functional disability to be appropriate and in consonance with the medical records and the nature of the appellant’s vocation.

However, regarding non-pecuniary losses, the Court observed that the permanent nature of hemiparesis and the claimant's continued need for assistance significantly impacted his routine life.

Consequently, the Court determined that the original awards for "pain and suffering" and "loss of amenities" were insufficient and required upward revision to reflect the actual hardship endured.

Specifically, compensation for "pain and suffering" was increased from Rs. 1,00,000 to Rs. 2,00,000, and "loss of amenities of life" was increased from Rs. 1,00,000 to Rs. 2,00,000. The total compensation was recomputed to Rs. 28,16,867 (an increase of Rs. 2,00,000).

The Court directed the Insurance Company to deposit the enhanced amount with 9% interest per annum within four weeks before the MACT.