Just Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Can Be Awarded In Motor Accident Compensation Claim Cases : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that 'just compensation' exceeding claimed amount can be awarded in motor accident compensation claim cases.

The Tribunal/Court ought to award 'just' compensation which is reasonable in the facts relying upon the evidence produced on record, the bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and JK Maheshwari observed.

In this case, a twelve year old child, while playing in front of his house, was dashed by the Commander Jeep and died on the way, while being taken to a hospital. A Claim Petition under Sections 140, 166 read with Section 171 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- with interest was filed by the mother of the deceased child. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal  granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- in lump sum. In appeal, the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs. 2,00,000/- equivalent to the value of the claim made in the Claim Petition. 

The mother-claimant thereafter approached the Apex Court contending that MACT and the High Court have not granted any amount under the head "loss of prospective happiness" and other conventional heads and the amount as granted under the head of loss of dependency is inadequate. The valuation of the claim is immaterial to grant just and reasonable compensation, however the High Court committed error restricting the compensation equal to valuation of Claim Petition, it was contended.

The court noted that the deceased was a brilliant student and studying in a private school. The court further noticed that in Kishan Gopal and another vs. Lala and others (2014) 1 SCC 244, the compensation has been calculated treating Rs. 30,000/- as notional income including future prospects in place of Rs. 15,000/- as specified in the IInd Schedule of the M.V. Act and applying the multiplier as specified in the judgment of Sarla Verma & Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another (2009) 6 SCC 121. Applying the said decision, the court enhanced the amount of compensation to 5,00,000/-. While allowing the appeal, the court said;

"it is necessary to clarify that as per the decision of a Three-Judge Bench of this Court in Nagappa vs. Gurdayal Singh and others (2003) 2 SCC 274, it was observed that under the MV Act, there is no restriction that the Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation exceeding the amount so claimed. The Tribunal/Court ought to award 'just' compensation which is reasonable in the facts relying upon the evidence produced on record. Therefore, less valuation, if any, made in the Claim Petition would not be impediment to award just compensation exceeding the claimed amount.

Case details

Meena Devi vs Nunu Chand Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 841 | SLP(C) 5345 OF 2019 | 13 October 2022 | Justices Sanjiv Khanna and JK Maheshwari

Headnotes

Motor Vehicles  Act, 1988 - Motor Accident Compensation Claims - There is no restriction that the Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation exceeding the amount so claimed. The Tribunal/Court ought to award 'just' compensation which is reasonable in the facts relying upon the evidence produced on record. Therefore, less valuation, if any, made in the Claim Petition would not be impediment to award just compensation exceeding the claimed amount - Referred to Nagappa vs. Gurdayal Singh and others (2003) 2 SCC 274. (Para 14)

Click here to Read/Download Judgment