Non-pecuniary damages must reflect proved disability proportionately and cannot constitute a windfall.

On 11 November 2016, a motorcycle carrying respondent No. 1 as a pillion rider was struck near Pothkha by a Tavera bearing registration No. JK01R-6955, driven by respondent No. 2 and owned by respondent No. 3.

Both motorcycle occupants sustained injuries and filed separate claim petitions before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Srinagar.

Respondent No. 1 was assessed as having 5% disability, while the motorcycle driver, his cousin, was assessed as having 50% permanent disability.

The Tribunal awarded compensation to both claimants, including Rs. 5,00,000 each as non-pecuniary damages for pain, suffering and trauma, with interest at 9.5% per annum, payable by the appellant-insurer.

The insurance company challenged only the award of Rs. 5,00,000 to respondent No. 1 and the rate of interest.

Whether the Tribunal was justified in awarding Rs. 5,00,000 to respondent No. 1 towards pain, suffering and loss of amenities despite the medical evidence indicating only 5% disability which was curable, non-permanent and not affecting his livelihood?

Whether the interest awarded at 9.5% per annum was excessive and required modification?

The Court applied Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which requires the Tribunal to determine compensation that is “just.”

It relied principally on Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343, which classifies compensation in personal-injury cases into pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages and requires an objective assessment of pain and suffering, loss of amenities, disability, medical expenses, loss of earnings and future consequences.

The Court held that compensation must fairly restore the victim, as far as money can, to the position preceding the accident, but cannot be a pittance, windfall or bonanza.

It also considered Kavita v. Deepak, AIR 2012 SC 2893, Jagdish v. Mohan, AIR 2018 SC 1347, and N. Suresh v. Yusuf Shariff, AIR 2012 SC 3431, which demonstrate that awards for pain, suffering and loss of amenities must correspond to the nature and extent of the injury and disability, with interest determined reasonably in the circumstances.

The Court found that the Tribunal had failed to distinguish between the substantially different injuries suffered by the two claimants by awarding each of them the same amount of Rs. 5,00,000 as non-pecuniary damages.

The medical evidence showed that respondent No. 1’s 5% disability was curable, was not permanent, did not affect his livelihood, and did not prevent him from working as a carpenter because his limbs remained normal.

His own evidence further established that he could walk after the accident and had received treatment at government hospitals.

Applying the principles governing objective and proportionate assessment of general damages, the Court held that the Tribunal’s award was excessive and unreasonable, particularly when compared with awards in cases involving far more serious and permanent disabilities.

The interest rate of 9.5% was likewise considered excessive and was reduced to 6% per annum.

Respondent No. 1 was held entitled to Rs. 50,000 as non-pecuniary damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenities, instead of Rs. 5,00,000.

The entire compensation amount was directed to be paid by the appellant-insurance company with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization.

The appeal was accordingly disposed of.