Facts
A five-year-old child was injured when a motorcycle struck her while she was standing by the roadside outside her home. She sustained a fracture of the left femur and scalp abrasions and was hospitalised for six days.
Source reference: p. 2–3, 7The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded total compensation of ₹3,97,081, including ₹3,00,000 for pain, suffering, and loss of amenities; ₹25,000 for the parents’ discomfort and loss of earnings during hospitalisation; ₹47,081 for medical and incidental expenses; and ₹25,000 for future medical expenses.
Source reference: p. 5–6The insurer appealed, contending that the compensation—particularly the amount awarded for pain and suffering and the disability assessment—was excessive.
Source reference: p. 6Issues
1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was inadequate and required modification
Source reference: p. 62. Whether the Tribunal’s award called for interference in light of the insurer’s challenge to the compensation and disability assessment
Source reference: p. 6–8Law Applied
The appeal was brought under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Source reference: p. 2The Court relied on Master Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2014) 14 SCC 396, in which the Supreme Court awarded compensation under heads including the child’s pain and suffering, the parents’ loss during hospitalisation, medical and incidental expenses, and future medical expenses.
Source reference: p. 7The Court used that decision as a comparator when assessing the reasonableness of the compensation awarded in this case.
Source reference: p. 7Reasoning
The Court noted that the child was five years old, had sustained a femur fracture, and that the doctor assessed disability at 20%.
Source reference: p. 7Comparing the Tribunal’s award with the compensation in Master Mallikarjun, the Court considered the ₹25,000 award for the parents’ discomfort and loss of earnings during hospitalisation adequate.
Source reference: p. 7It also found no basis on the record to disturb the amounts awarded for medical and incidental expenses or future medical treatment.
Source reference: p. 7–8It therefore concluded that the Tribunal’s total award did not warrant interference.
Source reference: p. 8Holding
The Court dismissed the insurer’s appeal and confirmed the Tribunal’s judgment and award of ₹3,97,081.
It directed that the amount deposited in the appeal be transmitted to the Tribunal along with the trial-court record.
Source reference: p. 8Acts & Sections Cited
1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Motor Vehicles Act, 19881
Original Court PDF
M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTDvsAMRUTA D/O BHIMAPPA DASAPPAGOL
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
