Amount of compensation claimed is not a bar for Tribunal and High Court to award more than what is claimed, provided it is found to be just and reasonable
In a recent judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has enhanced the compensation in a motor vehicle accident claim holding that 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.
ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
4286 (2024) (10) abcaus.in SC
In the instant case, the claimant having suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident case, had filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the order of the High Court and sought enhancement of compensation.
A high speed bus (the offending bus) hit a car carrying four pessengers subjecting all the occupants of the car to serious injuries one of which later succumbed to the injuries. A police case was registered against the driver of the offending bus.
Three injured occupants of the car and the legal heirs of the deceased filed different claim petitions. The Insurance Company contested the claim petitions. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal decided the claim by a common Award by holding that petitioners were entitled to get the compensation.
The present claimant had sustained head injury, which was grievous in nature. The claimant was initially admitted in a Government Hospital and due to his serious condition, he was shifted to Private Hospital for better treatment and remained admitted there for approx. 25 days. During that period, he had undergone a major brain surgery. The mother of the appellant in her statement stated that due to the accident, her son had become mentally unsound and he was not able to understand anything and is bedridden since then.
It was claimed by the mother of the claimant that the appellant spent about ₹15,00,000/- on his treatment, which was still going on. However, total bills produced towards medical expenses were much less than the amount claimed. Accordingly, the Tribunal awarded the claim only to the extent of bills available.
As far as the employment of the appellant/claimant was concerned, it was claimed that at the relevant point of time he was working as Branch Manager in a Private Limited company and was earning salary of ₹ 22,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal assessed the income on the basis of Income Tax return which was again much less. His disability was assessed by the District Medical Board to the extent of 60%.
The aforesaid assessment of disability of the appellant was conducted 02 years after the accident, meaning thereby, the disability was subsisting. It was claimed that on account of 60% disability suffered by the appellant, he had suffered 100% functional disability because of brain injury suffered by him. However, the Tribunal assessed the disability and loss in earning capacity only to the extent of 60%.
The age of the appellant was about 32 years at the time of the accident. Since the appellant fell in the age group between 31 to 35, multiplier 16 was applied for assessment of compensation referring to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court. While assessing the compensation, the Tribunal, in addition to the loss of future income calculated at 60% disability, awarded ₹ 50,000/- on account of mental agony, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities, and further awarded ₹ 1,00,000/- for future medical expenses. The total compensation of ₹ 20,60,385 was awarded by the Tribunal.
Aggrieved against the said award of the Tribunal, the appellant as well as the Insurance Company preferred appeals before the High Court. The High Court opined that the appellant had suffered 100% functional disability as against 60% assessed by the Tribunal because even if the disability from persistent neurocognitive is 60%, such disability entails 100% loss of earning capacity. The High Court modified the Award of the Tribunal and enhanced the amount of compensation from ₹ 20,60,385/- to ₹ 30,99,873/- @long with interest @ 6% per annum.
Before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the appellant submitted that while assessing the compensation, the Tribunal as well as the High Court failed to appreciate that the income claimed by appellant was ₹ 22,000/- per month i.e. ₹2,64,000/- per annum. However, the assessment of compensation was made by taking the returned income which pertained to two years earlier assessment year. Further, it was contended that he should be awarded enhanced compensation under the head of future medical expenses as he would be required to incur medical expenses on a regular basis, and should also be granted compensation for an attendant.
On the other hand, the Insurance company contended that there is no scope of further enhancement specially keeping in view the fact that the appellant had claimed a sum of ₹30,00,000/- as compensation, and the High Court has already awarded more than that.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that as per the Salary Certificate he was working as Branch Manager and he was getting a consolidated salary of ₹22,000 one year prior to the date of accident. However, both the courts below failed to consider the fact that there was a gap of approximately 02 years and 09 months between the income tax returns relied upon and the date of accident. Accordingly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it was reasonable to take the income of the appellant at ₹2,00,000/- per annum, i.e., ₹16,666.67 per month.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that the Tribunal and the High Court both failed to consider the fact that the appellant was also entitled for enhancement on account of future prospects. Following the law laid by the Court, it was held that as the age of appellant was 32 years at the time of accident, he was entitled to 40% future prospects.
Coming to the compensation under the head of attendant, the Hon’ble Supreme Court noted that the Tribunal awarded a meagre sum of ₹10,000/-. While this amount may have been awarded considering the cost of attendant charges incurred during the period of appellant’s treatment, as he remained admitted in hospital for 25 days and had to undergo surgery post initial operation as well. However, considering the fact of mental disability to be suffered by appellant, who was now around 40 years old and the age of the mother who was above 60 years old, and will be appellant’s primary caretaker, the Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that a reasonable amount for future attendant charges should also be awarded to the appellant. As such, ₹1,00,000/- was held to be reasonable and was awarded to the appellant on account of future attendant charges.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in addition to the above, also held that the appellant was entitled to compensation on account of loss of marriage prospects. Both the Tribunal and the High Court had not awarded to the appellant under this head. Accordingly, considering the law laid down it was held that the appellant deserved to be awarded a sum of ₹1,00,000/- on this account. Further, it was held that a compensation of ₹50,000/- on account of pain and suffering was also on lower side and the same was enhanced to ₹1,00,000/-.
The argument that the appellant had 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, was rejected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that 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.
Accordingly, the total amount of compensation was enhanced to ₹ 52,31,000/-.
Download Full Judgment Click Here >>
- Non deposit of TDS by deductor – Assessee can not be denied tax credit – ITAT
- RBI urges banks to reduce number of inoperative frozen accounts enabling mobile / e-KYC
- AO whether obliged or not to decided pointwise objection u/s 148A(b) – SC admits SLP
- Addition on account of unexplained investment in construction of hotel – ITD appeal dismissed
- Transfer/Promotion in the grade of CIT / Director of Income Tax
