Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has said that compensation in accident cases under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, must be fair and just, regardless of whether the claimant has sought a lower amount.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra enhanced the total compensation to be paid a man to Rs 17.82 lakh from Rs 6.77 lakh as determined by the high court.

Appellant Hare Krushna Mahanta filed an appeal against the judgment and order of April 4, 2022, passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, which in turn was preferred against the judgment and order of December 13, 2019, delivered by the 2nd Additional District Judge-cum-3rd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuttack.

On December 6, 2016, the claimant-appellant, aged 51 years, working as a Primary School Teacher at Kadodihi, was returning from school on his motorcycle with his colleague, namely, Sabita Mahanta, riding on the extremely left side of the road. The offending vehicle, coming from the opposite direction of the road, being driven rashly and negligently, dashed into the claimant-appellant from the front, thus injuring him seriously.

He was taken to Lahunipada CHC for treatment and was, then, shifted to Kaling Hospital Pvt Ltd, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneshwar, where he was treated from December 7, 2013 to December 22, 2013. Subsequently, he also got treatment at ISPAT General Hospital, Rourkela.

During treatment, the claimant-appellant underwent surgery, and a nail was inserted in his right leg.

In connection with this incident, an FIR was registered under Sections 279, 337, and 338 of the Indian Penal Code by the husband of the other injured person, Sabita Mahanta, at IIC, Lahunipada Police Station.

The claimant-appellant filed an application seeking compensation to the tune of Rs 15,00,000 submitting that he was working as a Primary School Teacher earning Rs 19,000 per month at the time of the accident and also has spent Rs 10,00,000 towards medical treatment, also suffered pain and loss of income.

The tribunal, by its order, proceeded ex-parte against respondent No.1 and held respondent No.2, the Insurance company, liable to pay an amount of Rs 6,17,515 along with interest at the rate of 7%. The tribunal considered permanent disability suffered by the appellant as 10% and took his income to be Rs 16,340 per month on the basis of his salary certificate.

Being aggrieved with the amount of compensation awarded, the claimant-appellant filed an appeal before the high court for enhancement on the ground that the tribunal had incorrectly appreciated the nature of the injury and further claimed permanent disability to the extent of 40%.

The high court, by the impugned order, enhanced the amount awarded to the claimant-appellant with an additional consolidated sum of Rs 60,000.

After hearing the counsel for the parties, the bench said, "It is borne from the record that the claimant-appellant had agreed on the additional consolidated sum granted by the High Court. It is imperative for this court, however, to reiterate that despite such consent, the objective when granting compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is to ensure just and fair compensation is paid to the aggrieved party."

The bench pointed out this had come to be reiterated by the top court recently in Meena Devi Vs Nunu Chand Mahto (2023) wherein it was observed: "The Tribunal/Court ought to award "just" compensation which is reasonable in the facts relying upon the evidence produced on record. Therefore, less valuation, if any, made in the claim petition would not be impediment to award just compensation exceeding the claimed amount.”

As a result, the court computed the total compensation payable to claimant-appellant as Rs 17,82,885.

The bench, while allowing the appeal, modified the judgments of the high court and the tribunal, with interest as determined by the MACT.

Case Title: Hare Krushna Mahanta Vs Himadari Sahu & Ors