Court’s Decision:
The Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur, allowed the appeal in part and modified the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal’s award by enhancing the compensation from ₹44,879 to ₹66,879. The Court held that “the Tribunal erred in not awarding any amount of compensation towards loss of earning during laid down period” and observed that despite the absence of oral evidence on income, the pleadings and circumstances warranted a just compensation.
Facts:
The appellant, a 45-year-old woman, sustained grievous injuries, including a fractured leg, when the motorcycle on which she was a pillion rider was struck by a tractor-trolley being driven rashly and negligently. The incident occurred on 24.02.2017 at Somwari Bazar, Navapara, when she and her husband had stopped their motorcycle. A police report was registered under Sections 279 and 337 IPC. She was treated at Rajdhani Super Specialty Hospital and claimed that due to the accident, she was unable to work and had to hire a maid for assistance.
She filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking ₹30,00,000 as compensation, citing her monthly income as ₹6,000 from labour work.
Issues:
- Whether the Claims Tribunal erred in awarding inadequate compensation, particularly by not considering:
- Permanent disability,
- Loss of income during the treatment period,
- Mental pain and suffering, and
- Special diet.
- Whether the findings of the Tribunal regarding breach of insurance policy conditions and contributory negligence were sustainable.
Petitioner’s Arguments:
Counsel for the appellant contended that the compensation awarded was grossly inadequate and did not reflect the severity of injuries and resultant hardship. It was argued that:
- No compensation was granted for permanent disability or income loss during the four-month recovery period.
- The compensation for pain and suffering was unjustly low.
- No amount was awarded for special diet despite clear evidence of fracture.
Respondent’s Arguments:
The insurance company opposed the enhancement of compensation, arguing:
- No documentary proof of permanent disability had been furnished.
- The Tribunal rightly declined loss of income since the appellant did not explicitly depose about her work or earnings in her testimony.
- The compensation already awarded was fair and based on available evidence.
Analysis of the Law:
The Court examined Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and reiterated that compensation must be just, fair, and sufficient to offset both pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses suffered due to the accident. The Court emphasized that the Tribunal had erred in mechanically relying only on oral deposition for income proof when the pleadings specifically mentioned the appellant’s occupation and earnings. The judgment recognized that homemakers or working women, especially in rural settings, may not always produce formal documentation but still contribute to the family’s economic well-being.
Precedent Analysis:
Although no judgments were cited explicitly within the order, the decision is consistent with the Supreme Court’s approach in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343, where it was held that notional income and real-life circumstances must guide the assessment of compensation in the absence of strict proof.
Court’s Reasoning:
The Court held that:
- Even if the appellant did not mention her earnings during her testimony, the pleadings and her age supported the inference that she was a labourer or at least contributed economically as a homemaker.
- The Tribunal erred in denying loss of income for the treatment period and awarded ₹12,000 (₹6,000 x 2 months).
- The award of ₹5,000 for mental pain and suffering was inadequate considering the fracture and was enhanced to ₹10,000.
- ₹5,000 was added for special diet due to the nature of injuries.
- ₹10,800 was already granted for medical expenses and ₹19,079 for purchase of medicines.
- ₹10,000 for conveyance was retained.
Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed in part. The total compensation was enhanced from ₹44,879 to ₹66,879 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of application till realization. The Court directed that the already paid amount be adjusted from this enhanced sum and retained the other terms of the Tribunal’s award.
Implications:
This judgment underscores that:
- Compensation should not be denied merely due to the absence of oral testimony when pleadings and circumstances reasonably indicate loss.
- Even homemakers or women in informal work setups deserve to be compensated for economic loss and emotional trauma.
- The court took a purposive and equitable view of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, focusing on real impact rather than rigid procedural proof.