The Court’s decision was based on the fact that the High Court had “utterly failed” to properly examine the compensation granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) under various heads, apart from the “Loss of Income.”
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court recently increased the compensation amount for a victim of a motor accident, stressing that although money cannot replace a lost life, efforts must be made to provide fair compensation. In this case, the Court allowed an appeal filed by the victim, who had sustained severe injuries in a motor accident.
The compensation awarded for the injuries was increased to Rs. 48,00,000.
The Court’s decision was based on the fact that the High Court had “utterly failed” to properly examine the compensation granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) under various heads, apart from the “Loss of Income.”
The Bench, which consisted of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prasanna B. Varale, observed,
“In some cases for personal injury, the claim could be in respect of lifetime’s earnings lost because, though he will live, he cannot earn his living. In others, the claim may be made for partial loss of earnings. Each case has to be considered in the light of its own facts and at the end, one must ask whether the sum awarded is a fair and reasonable sum.”
BRIEF FACTS:
The Appellant, a B.Tech student, had been involved in an accident with a truck that was being driven recklessly. As a result of the accident, the Appellant was left with permanent 60% disability. Initially, the MACT had granted compensation, which was later enhanced by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The High Court had increased the compensation based on the victim’s loss of income, using a notional income approach.
The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court’s approach to calculating the loss of income and the 60% disability, but it noted that the High Court had overlooked other aspects of the compensation.
The Bench observed, “After perusing the judgement of High Court, it can be seen that the High Court has rightly adopted the settled position of law in assessing the notional income and subsequently enhancing the Loss of Income of the petitioner after considering his 60% disability. However, the High Court has utterly failed in delving into the aspect of correctness of compensation granted under other heads by MACT.”
One of the major points considered by the Court was the MACT’s reasoning for providing compensation for a short period of time. The MACT had based this on the Appellant’s medical reports, which showed an improvement in his condition. However, the Court pointed out that these reports did not guarantee a full recovery within a certain timeframe.
The Bench remarked, “Hence, the MACT has acted against the recommendations by the doctors as to the period of recovery.”
The Supreme Court reiterated the principle that while money cannot replace a lost life, reasonable compensation should still be provided to the victim.
The Court said, “It is well accepted norm that money cannot substitute a life lost but an effort has to be made for grant of just compensation so far as money can compensate.”
Finally, the Court concluded that the compensation granted under the “non-pecuniary compensation” category by the MACT was not sufficient to meet the needs of the victim.
The Bench stated, “In our considered opinion, the compensation granted under the head – non-pecuniary compensation is not sufficient to meet the needs of the petitioner. Hence, in view of the erroneous consideration by the MACT in granting compensation warrants for its enhancement.”
As a result, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, enhancing the compensation amount for the victim.
In summary, the Supreme Court’s decision emphasizes the need for a thorough and fair assessment of compensation in motor accident cases, ensuring that the victim receives just compensation for both pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses. This case serves as a reminder of the importance of considering all aspects of compensation, including the medical reports, disability, and future earnings loss, to ensure that justice is served.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
