Permanent disability merits separate compensation even where current earnings remain unaffected.

The appellant-claimant, Sukh Ram, sustained grievous crush injuries to both legs in a motor vehicle accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1, who was driving truck No. HR-29/9246, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3, the Insurance Company.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad, awarded ₹2,65,654 with interest at 9% per annum under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The claimant appealed seeking enhancement of compensation.

The finding of rash and negligent driving was not challenged by the respondents and was affirmed by the High Court.

The claimant had undergone surgery, including tibial nailing, incurred substantial medical expenses, remained on leave without pay, and was assessed to have suffered 30% permanent disability.

The Court applied Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, under which an injured claimant is entitled to just compensation for injuries caused by the negligence of the offending vehicle’s driver.

It relied on the principle that compensation must be fair, reasonable, equitable, and based on the evidence, rather than being either a windfall or a pittance.

The Court further relied on G. Ravindranath @ R. Chowdary v. E. Srinivas, 2013 (3) RCR (Civil) 934, which identifies the relevant pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads in personal injury claims, including treatment expenses, loss of earnings, future medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and loss of expectation of life.

Compensation under permanent disability and loss of amenities is appropriate where the medical evidence establishes serious and lasting functional consequences of the injury.

The Court accepted the proved hospital, medicine, and treatment bills but increased the treatment-expense award from the proved amount of ₹99,494 to ₹1,20,000, observing that injured persons may not preserve every bill.

It upheld ₹65,150 for loss of income and ₹12,000 for loss of bonus, since the claimant had himself stated his monthly salary as ₹8,145, notwithstanding other salary evidence.

Considering the period of treatment, the nature of the injuries, and the claimant’s need for assistance, nutritious diet, and transportation, it awarded ₹42,500 under those incidental heads.

Given the bilateral crush injuries, surgical intervention, and considerable pain, compensation for pain and suffering was enhanced to ₹50,000.

Although the claimant’s employment was not shown to have diminished his earning capacity, his field duties were materially affected by the 30% permanent disability; therefore, compensation for permanent disability was increased to ₹75,000.

The lasting discomfort, inconvenience, hardship, and impairment of ordinary life justified a further award of ₹20,000 for loss of amenities.

The total compensation was accordingly recalculated at ₹3,84,650.

The High Court enhanced the total compensation from ₹2,65,654 to ₹3,84,650, granting an enhancement of ₹1,18,996, rounded off to ₹1,19,000.

The enhanced amount was made payable by respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and severally, with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, stated as 9 October 2001, until realization.

The Registry was directed to email the authenticated judgment to the Insurance Company in accordance with the Supreme Court’s directions in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. v. Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 534 of 2020, decided on 16 March 2021.