Case Name: Atul Tiwari Vs. Regional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 151 of 2025
Date: 6 January, 2025
Quorum: Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Prasanna B.Varale
FACTS OF THE CASE
On October 3, 2009, the appellant, a B.Tech student, Atul Tiwari, suffered severe injuries from a motorcycle accident caused by the negligence of a truck driver. The injuries rendered him permanently disabled to the extent of 60% affecting his physical and functional abilities. Through his father, the appellant sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), which awarded him ₹19,43,800 along with interest @ 7% per annum. Unsatisfied, both parties appealed before the High Court against the award of the MACT, which further partially enhanced the compensation under the head “Loss of Income” to 27,21,600.
ISSUE OF THE CASE
- Whether the compensation awarded by the MACT and later increased by the High Court was appropriate or not?
- Whether the compensation awarded for particular categories such as future medical bills, attendant charges, and non-pecuniary damages was fair and reasonable?
- Whether the multiplier and future prospects were used correctly to calculate compensation.
ARGUMENTS
Arguments of the Appellant:
The petitioner pleaded for raising the enhancement of compensation for future prospects to 50%, from the previous 40%, giving the reasons that the petitioner is still a young boy and has a bright future. The petitioner contended that although he has a 60% physical disability, that cannot be put at 100% of functional disablement for which it is claimed he cannot earn and hence the compensation in regard to loss of earning capacity may be computed accordingly.
The petitioner emphasized the inadequacies of the awards against medical expenses, especially future speech and physiotherapy sessions, for not being considered proper time frames, as established by doctors. Accidental attendant charges and transportation expenses must also be increased since they are being claimed as lifetime support and increasing due to inflation. The petitioner also claimed an increase in an amount regarding non-pecuniary damages for loss of marriage prospects and loss of quality of life.
Arguments by the Respondent:
The respondent argued that the High Court’s determination of Rs. 15,000 per month as notional income was appropriate for the year 2009. It claimed that raising future prospects to 40% was consistent with other rulings, especially the Pranay Sethi case.
The respondent contended that additional improvements were unnecessary and that the awards for medical and therapy costs were supported by solid proof of the petitioner’s condition improving over time. The reply insisted that the amount already granted was sufficient to cover attendant fees and transportation costs. It also underlined that in order to conform to accepted legal norms, non-pecuniary damages have to stay nominal.
ANALYSIS
The Supreme Court analyzed the MACT and High Court judgments and identified several shortcomings:
It would be proper on the part of the High Court to reduce the loss of income to Rs. 27,21,600, considering 60% disability and a multiplier of 18. However, the High Court should have also taken into account the fact that applicant has become completely disabled for day-to-day activities and a reassessment would be required considering loss of 100% income.
Awards for future medical expenses, especially treatment for speech and physiotherapy, were not being totally in accord with the requirements. Medical experts testified in favor of a longer duration of treatment, which was not fully acknowledged by the lower courts.
Compensation on account of attendant and transportation costs is not adequate because the petitioner’s lifelong dependence on attendant and medical visits.
Finally, the compensation awarded for non-pecuniary damages, such as mental agony, loss of amenities, and lower quality of life, is unduly nominal and does not appropriately consider the pain and sufferings of the petitioner emanating from a lifetime of misery.
JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal increasing the total compensation to Rs. 48,00,000 being the same amount which was prayed before the MACT. The court expressed the essence of having fair compensation, taking cognizance of the pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss and acknowledging the devastating and life-affecting consequence stemming from the accident upon the petitioner.
CONCLUSION
The present judgment highlights the necessity of broader and fairer compensation in cases of motor road accidents. It emphasized the need for medical records to be considered in cases like these, future uncertainties, and what is best for the victim. Through the enhanced compensation, the Supreme Court reiterated its obligation to do justice to those who have had their lives ruined due to negligence.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY SAGORIKA MUKHERJEE
