Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has said a demand made by a claimant is no bar for the court to enhance compensation in road accident cases as it is the duty of the court to assess fair compensation.

A bench of Justices J K Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal enhanced compensation awarded to appellant Chandramani Nanda, who suffered 100 % functional disability due to brain injuries sustained in a road accident in Odisha, from Rs 30.99 lakh to Rs 52.31 lakh.

The court rejected a contention made by the insurance company that the appellant had initially claimed a sum of Rs 30 lakh and since the same had been awarded to him by the High Court, no further enhancement was possible. 

"We cannot accept this argument and it is duly rejected. It is a settled proportion of law, that the amount of compensation claimed is not a bar for the Tribunal and the High Court to award more than what is claimed, provided it is found to be just and reasonable. It is the duty of the court to assess fair compensation. Rough calculation made by the claimant is not a bar or the upper limit," the bench said.

The court made a reference in this regard to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Meena Devi vs. Nunu Chand Mahto (2023).

The bench allowed an appeal by the claimant against the Odisha High Court's order which had enhanced the compensation from Rs 20.60 lakh to Rs 30.99 lakh.

The appellant, along with two others, had suffered massive injuries, while one occupant succumbed to the injuries, after their car was hit by a bus in the accident on January 16, 2024.

His counsel raised the plea for enhancing the compensation, contending that the High Court and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal failed to appreciate the correct income of the appellant, and future medical expenses due to the pain and mental agony which he had to suffer due to brain injury.

The insurance company, on the contrary, said there was no scope of further enhancement specially keeping in view the fact that the appellant had claimed a sum of Rs 30 lakh as compensation, and the High Court had already awarded more than that. However, still being reasonable, the insurance company did not prefer any appeal. 

After hearing the counsel and going through the record, the bench assessed the income of the appellant at Rs 2,00,000 as the income tax returns relied upon were of the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12, two years prior to the accident.

On the point of assessment of functional disability as 100% by the High Court as against 60% by the Tribunal, there is no challenge by the insurance company, the bench pointed out.

"However, the Tribunal and the High Court both have failed to consider the fact that the appellant is also entitled for enhancement on account of future prospects," the bench said.

Hence, in line with the law laid down in National Insurance Company Limited Vs Pranay Sethi and Others (2017) and given the age of appellant was 32 years at the time of accident, he is entitled to 40% future prospects, the bench held.

Court also awarded a lump sum amount of Rs one lakh as reasonable to the appellant on account of future attendant charges. It also granted Rs one lakh on account of loss of marriage prospect.

"Further, in our view, a compensation of Rs 50,000 on account of pain and suffering is also on lower side and the same.deserves to be enhanced to Rs 1,00,000. It is for the reason that on account of the injury suffered, the appellant has become mentally unstable, having disability of 60%, which indeed has resulted in 100%functional disability," the bench said.

The court thus granted the total amount of compensation as Rs 52,31,000. The appellant will be entitled to get interest on the enhanced compensation at the rate of 6% as awarded by the High Court, it said.

Case Title: Chandramani Nanda Vs Sarat Chandra Swain And Another