Money Cannot Substitute Life Lost But Effort Has To Be Made For Granting Just Compensation: SC Enhances Motor Accident Compensation
The Supreme Court enhanced the motor accident compensation granted to a victim after reiterating that even though money cannot substitute a life lost, an effort has to be made for grant of just compensation.
The Court allowed an Appeal filed by the Appellant, enhancing the compensation granted for injuries sustained in a motor accident to Rs. 48,00,000. The Court held that the High Court “utterly failed” in not delving into the correctness of the compensation granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) under other heads apart from ‘Loss of Income’.
The Bench 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.”
AOR Aditi Tripathi represented the Appellant, while Advocate Abhishek Gola appeared for the Respondents.
The Appellant, a B.Tech student, met with an accident with a truck being driven on the wrong side in a negligent manner. On account of his serious injuries, the Appellant was rendered 60% permanently disabled.
The compensation awarded by the MACT was enhanced by the Madhya Pradesh High Court considering loss of income based on notional income.
The Supreme Court 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.”
The Bench stated that the High Court failed to consider that MACT’s rationale in granting compensation for a short duration was based on the Appellant’s medical reports highlighting the improvement in his health, however, it failed to consider the fact that the reports did not guarantee his recovery within a specified time. “Hence, the MACT has acted against the recommendations by the doctors as to the period of recovery,” it noted.
“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,” the Court remarked.
Consequently, the Court held, “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.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Atul Tiwari v. Regional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 29)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Aditi Tripathi
Respondent: Advocate Abhishek Gola; AOR Viresh B. SaharyaA
