Supreme Court Enhances Compensation For B.Tech Student Who Got Disabled After Motor Accident To Rs. 48 Lakhs

The Supreme Court enhanced compensation granted to a B.Tech student who suffered 60 percent disability after a motor accident from Rs. 35.48 lakhs awarded by the Madhya Pradesh High Court to Rs. 48 lakhs.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prasanna B. Varale emphasized that while monetary compensation cannot replace a life lost or fully mitigate severe injuries, it should aim to provide just relief for the harm suffered.

“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. This court in the case of Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. has observed that basis for assessment of all damages for person injury is compensation. Perfect compensation is hardly possible but one has to keep in mind that victim has suffered at the hands of the wrongdoer and court must take care to give him full and fair compensation for that he had suffered…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”, the Court observed.

The Court upheld the compensation granted by the High Court under the head “Loss of Income” but observed that the compensation for medical expenses and non-pecuniary damages was insufficient.

“this court is of the view that High Court only to the extent of enhancing the compensation of the petitioner under the head - Loss of Income has not made any error. However, the High Court has utterly failed in not delving into the correctness of the compensation granted by MACT under other heads. Therefore, this court is inclined to enhance the amount of compensation to be granted to the petitioner to Rs. 48,00,000/- in toto, the same is hereby matched with the amount claimed by him in his application before the MACT”, the Court held.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, a B.Tech third-year student at the time, was involved in a road accident on October 3, 2009, while traveling to Panchmarhi with a friend on a motorcycle. A truck, negligently driven on the wrong side of the road, collided with the petitioner, resulting in severe injuries to his head, jaws, legs, knees, chest, and ribs. The petitioner underwent three surgeries and was declared 60 percent permanently disabled.

The petitioner, through his father, filed a compensation application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, before the MACT in Bhopal. On June 30, 2014, MACT awarded a total compensation of Rs. 19,43,800 with 7 percent annual interest from the application date to the payment date. Components of the compensation included loss of income, medical expenses, therapy costs, and non-pecuniary damages.

Both the petitioner and the respondent insurance company challenged the MACT's order before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The respondent sought a reduction in compensation, while the petitioner sought an enhancement. On September 23, 2022, the High Court dismissed the respondent's appeal and partially allowed the petitioner's appeal, enhancing the compensation under the “Loss of Income” head from Rs. 11,23,200 to Rs. 27,21,600, taking into account the petitioner's 60 percent disability, notional monthly income of Rs. 15,000, and future prospects, bringing the total compensation to about 35.48 lakhs.

The petitioner then filed the present appeal before the Supreme Court seeking further enhancement.

The petitioner sought for increase in compensation for future prospects to 50 percent from the 40 percent granted by the High Court, and asserted that his loss of income should reflect 100 percent functional disability due to his inability to work in his profession, rather than the 60 percent disability applied by the MACT and High Court. He sought an increase in the notional income to Rs. 20,000 per month, citing economic changes.

It was contended that MACT erred by denying future medical expenses on the ground that the petitioner's father, a government servant, would receive reimbursements. Reimbursement claims of Rs. 4,85,418 and Rs. 74,306 were still pending, and the petitioner's father was due to retire in December 2023.

The petitioner also claimed that the compensation for speech therapy and physiotherapy was insufficient, as the treatment durations recommended by doctors were longer than accounted for. Further, he sought significant increases in attendant and transportation costs, given his lifelong dependency. Lastly, the petitioner said that non-pecuniary compensation, including damages for pain, suffering, and loss of marriage prospects, was inadequate.

The respondent-insurer argued that the High Court had reasonably assessed the notional income and future prospects based on established precedents.

Citing various precedents, the Supreme Court reiterated the importance of the multiplier method for calculating just compensation. The Court emphasized that the multiplier method ensures consistency and fairness in awards by factoring in age, income, and life expectancy.

The Supreme Court in R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. categorized compensable damages into pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses, highlighting the importance of a comprehensive approach to addressing both.

In Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, the Court elaborated on assessing permanent disability's impact on earning capacity, stressing individualized evaluations over mechanical calculations.

In the present case, the Supreme Court observed that the High Court rightly enhanced the petitioner's “Loss of Income” to Rs. 27,21,600 but failed to review other heads of compensation adequately. The Supreme Court observed that the compensation for non-pecuniary damages—such as pain, suffering, and loss of amenities—was insufficient.

The Court observed that the MACT, despite acknowledging the medical opinion provided by the doctors, had not granted compensation for the full duration of time necessary for the petitioner's recovery. Instead, it limited compensation for therapies and attendant charges to a specified short duration, ignoring the inherent uncertainty regarding the petitioner's recovery period.

“Furthermore, the High Court has failed to consider the fact that MACT's rationale in granting compensation for a short duration is based on the reports highlighting the improvement in the petitioner's health however, it has failed to consider the fact that the reports do not guarantee the recovery of the petitioner within a specified time. Hence, the MACT has acted against the recommendations by the doctors as to the period of recovery”, the Court added.

The Court further said that non-pecuniary damages awarded by MACT were insufficient to meet the petitioner's needs.

The Supreme Court enhanced the total compensation to Rs. 48,00,000, aligning with the petitioner's original claim before MACT.

Case no. – Civil Appeal No. 151 of 2025

Case Title – Atul Tiwari v. Regional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 26