Non-pecuniary damages for disfigurement and pain must reflect the subjective, life-altering impact of permanent physical injuries.

The Appellant, a Senior Resident Doctor (Orthopaedics) at JPN Trauma Centre AIIMS, was injured on January 31, 2012, when his car collided with a DTC bus driven rashly by Respondent No. 1

The Appellant sustained grievous injuries, including multiple facial fractures (nasal, orbital floor), enophthalmos (sunken eyeball), and a permanent disability of 14% in his right lower limb

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded ₹3,92,000/- but denied compensation for loss of earnings, noting the Appellant received a full salary during treatment and subsequently secured higher-paying contractual employment

The Appellant sought enhancement of the award

1. Whether the Appellant is entitled to compensation for loss of earnings during the treatment period despite receiving a full salary from his employer

2. Whether the Appellant is entitled to compensation for loss of future earnings given his continued employment and increased income post-accident

3. Whether the non-pecuniary damages awarded for pain, suffering, and disfigurement were adequate given the nature of the injuries

The Court applied the principles of just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

It relied on New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. R K Arora regarding compensation for leave accumulated during treatment

For non-pecuniary damages, the Court cited K.S. Muralidhar v. R. Subbulakshmi, emphasizing that "pain and suffering" reflects a subjective, life-altering deprivation that requires fair monetary translation

It further applied Mohd. Sabeer alias Shabir Hussain v. Regional Manager, U.P. SRTC, which mandates liberal compensation for bodily disabilities and disfigurement to help victims cope with lifelong loss

The Court rejected the claim for loss of earnings during treatment because the Appellant admitted during cross-examination that he received a full salary from AIIMS during his leave, thus suffering no pecuniary loss

Similarly, loss of future earnings was denied as the Appellant’s income increased post-accident, making a finding of diminished earning capacity "presumptuous" and "not rational"

However, the Court found the MACT’s non-pecuniary award "quite inadequate"

It analyzed the Appellant’s testimony regarding his inability to stand for long hours, difficulty performing orthopedic surgeries, facial deformity, and chronic breathing issues

Applying the K.S. Muralidhar and Mohd. Sabeer precedents, the Court determined that the profound physical and emotional trauma necessitated a significant upward revision of damages for "Pain and Suffering," "Disfiguration," and "Loss of Amenities of Life"

The Court enhanced the total compensation from ₹3,92,000/- to ₹11,41,485/-, specifically increasing "Pain and Suffering" to ₹3,25,000/-, "Disfiguration" to ₹3,00,000/-, and awarding a new head of ₹2,50,000/- for "Loss of Amenities of Life"

The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the enhanced amount with 9% interest per annum within four weeks