“Rough calculation made by the claimant is not a bar or the upper limit,” SC on Motor Accident Claims

While hearing the Chandramani Nanda vs. Sarat Chandra Swain and Another case on October 15, 2024, the Supreme Court (SC) of India held 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. The bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice JK Maheshwari referred to the Meena Devi vs. Nunu Chand Mahto case and said, “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.” While hearing the matter, the SC bench considered the following questions:

• “Whether the claim applications are maintainable?
• Whether due to rash and/or negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration No.OD-14-A-1774 the accident took place and in that accident deceased namely Ranjan Rout succumbed to injuries and other petitioners namely Dipti Ranjan Pattanayak, Santosh Baral, and Chandramani Nanda sustained injuries on their persons?
• Whether the petitioners are entitled to get the compensation and if so, what would be the extent?
• Whether both the Opposite Parties or either of them are/is liable to pay the compensation? and
• To what other relief/s, if any, the respective petitioners are entitled?”

In this case, the claimant, in a motor vehicle accident having suffered injuries, has filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. The present appellant had filed a petition claiming compensation. As all the claims had arisen from the same accident the Tribunal clubbed all the claim petitions and decided the same by a common Award. A perusal of the said Award passed by the Tribunal shows that the registered owner of the offending bus did not appear despite service and,  hence,  was proceeded against ex-parte. The Insurance Company contested the claim petitions. Aggrieved against the said award of the Tribunal, the present 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 Tribunal award and enhanced the compensation amount. This was done by considering the functional disability at 100% as opposed to 60%, as assessed by the Tribunal.

After hearing the matter, the bench said, “we are of the view that that an enhanced income should be considered for calculation of compensation. In this regard, the appellant has produced on record his income tax returns for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 as Exhibits 14 and 15, respectively. As per the records, for the assessment year 2010-11 (the financial year will be 2009-10), the income shown by the appellant was to the tune of ₹1,65,100/-. For the assessment year 2011-12 (the financial year will be 2010-11), the income was shown as ₹1,77,400/-. Further, as per the Salary Certificate Exhibit-22 placed on record by the appellant, he was working as Branch Manager for Padma Infrastructure and he was getting a consolidated salary of ₹22,000 one year prior to the date of accident. Now, it is to be noted that the accident took place on 16.01.2014, in the financial year 2013-14. If we calculate the annual income considering ₹22,000, it would come out to ₹2,64,000/- per annum.” 

Lastly, the SC bench ordered, “The total amount of compensation is rounded off to ₹52,31,000/-. The appellant will be entitled to get interest on the enhanced compensation at the rate of 6% as awarded by the High Court.”