Just Compensation To Be Paid To Claimant Even Though He Agreed To Consolidated Sum Before HC: SC Enhances Motor Accident Compensation
The Civil Appeal before the Apex Court was directed against the Judgment of the Orissa High Court.
The Supreme Court enhanced the compensation in a motor accident case where the claimant had agreed on the additional consolidated sum granted by the High Court. The Apex Court reiterated that despite such consent, the objective when granting compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is to ensure that just and fair compensation is paid to the aggrieved party.
The appeal before the Apex Court was directed against the Judgment of the Orissa High Court which in turn was preferred against the Judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuttack.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra enhanced the compensation from Rs 6,17,515 to Rs 17,82,825.
Advocate Chitta Ranjan Mishra represented the Appellant while AOR G. Balaji represented the Respondents.
Factual Background
The incident dates back to the year 2016 when the Claimant-Appellant, aged 51 years, working as a Primary School Teacher, was returning from school on his motorcycle with his colleague. The offending vehicle coming from the opposite direction of the road, driving rashly and negligently, dashed into the Claimant-Appellant from the front, thus injuring him seriously. During the medical treatment, the Claimant-Appellant underwent surgery, and a nail was inserted in his right leg.
An FIR came to be registered under Sections 279, 337, 338 of the Indian Penal Code by the husband of the other injured person, Sabita Mahanta. The Claimant-Appellant filed an application for compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, seeking compensation to the tune of Rs 15,00,000 submitting therein that he was working as a Primary School Teacher earning Rs.19,000 per month at the time of the accident and also spent Rs.10,00,000 towards medical treatment while also suffering pain and loss of income.
The Tribunal, by its Order, proceeded ex-parte and held the Respondent-Insurance company, liable to pay an amount of Rs.6,17,515 along with interest. The Tribunal considered permanent disability suffered by the Appellant as 10% and took his income to be Rs. 16,340 per month based on his salary certificate. The High Court in the appeal enhanced the amount awarded to the Claimant-Appellant with an additional consolidated sum of Rs.60,000.
Reasoning
The Bench took note of the fact that the Claimant-Appellant had agreed on the additional consolidated sum granted by the High Court. The Bench said, “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.”
Reliance was also placed upon the recent judgment in Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand Mahto (2023) wherein it was observed that less valuation, if any, made in the claim petition would not be an impediment to award just compensation exceeding the claimed amount.
The Order also highlighted that MACT took 3 years for disposal of the claim petition and the High Court took 2 years for disposal of the appeal.
Thus, granting enhanced compensation of over Rs 17 lakh, the Bench allowed the appeal and modified the impugned award of the Tribunal.
Cause Title: Hare Krushna Mahanta v. Himadri Sahu & Anr (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 165)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates Chitta Ranjan Mishra, Sparshkant Nayak, AOR Shakti Kanta Pattanaik
Respondents: AOR G. Balaji, Advocates Neeleshwar Pavani, Arzu Paul
