Amount Of Compensation Claimed Is Not A Bar For MACT To Award More Than What Is Claimed: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that a rough calculation made by a claimant is not a bar or the upper limit for claiming motor accident compensation since it is the duty of the Court to assess fair compensation.
The Court enhanced the compensation awarded to the claimant who suffered serious injuries in a motor accident. The Court, while modifying the order of the Orissa High Court, enhanced the compensation recognising 100% functional disability and loss of future prospects of the claimant.
A Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Rajesh Bindal held, “An argument is raised by learned counsel for the insurance company that the appellant has initially claimed a sum of ₹30,00,000/- and since the same having been awarded to him by the High Court, no further enhancement is 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.”
Advocate Chitta Ranjan Mishra represented the appellant, while AOR Amit Kumar Singh appeared for the respondents.
The mother of the claimant submitted that her son had become mentally unsound after the accident and had been bedridden since.
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) awarded compensation to the claimant assessing his disability and loss in earning capacity only to the extent of 60%. The decision was appealed before the High Court, which observed that the claimant had suffered 100% functional disability as against 60% assessed by the Tribunal because even if the disability from persistent neurocognitive was 60%, such disability entailed 100% loss of earning capacity.
The claimant, being aggrieved by the order of the High Court, submitted that the compensation on account of mental agony, pain and suffering and loss of amenities as assessed by the Tribunal was also on lower side as the appellant would undergo pain, suffering and mental agony throughout his life on account of brain injury.
The Supreme Court found, “Both the courts below failed to consider the fact that there is a gap of approximately 02 years and 09 months between the said income tax returns and the date of accident. It can be seen that the income of the appellant, based on the income tax returns so produced on record is progressive, there is a possibility that he may have left his business and join service to improve his income. Thus, in our view, it would be reasonable to take the income of the appellant at ₹2,00,000/- per annum, i.e., ₹16,666.67 per month.”
“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 noted.
Apart from this, the Court also awarded compensation on account of the loss of marriage prospects and enhanced compensation for on account of future attendant charges.
Consequently, the Court held that the amount of compensation claimed isn’t a bar for the Tribunal and the High Court to award more than what is claimed, provided it’s found to be “just and reasonable.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal while modifying the order of the High Court.
Cause Title: Chandramani Nanda v. Sarat Chandra Swain & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 777)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocate Chitta Ranjan Mishra; AOR Shakti Kanta Pattanaik
Respondents: AOR Amit Kumar Singh; Advocates K Enatoli Sema, Chubalemla Chang and Prang Newmai