Rajasthan High Court: In Civil Appeal filed by a permanently paralysed road accident victim, seeking enhancement of compensation, and another connected application filed by the insurance company challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (‘Tribunal’), Dausa (Rajasthan), the Single Judge Bench of Ganesh Ram Meena, J., held that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was inadequate and that “just compensation” as per the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is not a matter of charity but a moral necessity. The Court, hence, enhanced the total compensation from Rs. 1,49,88,153 to Rs. 1,90,00,000.
Background
The victim, a 21-year-old third-year B.Tech. student at the National Institute of Technology (NIT), Uttarakhand, while walking with a friend from the Polytechnic Campus of NIT, Uttarakhand, towards the IIT Campus, was struck by a vehicle being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver. As a result, the victim sustained grievous injuries, and her companion also suffered physical harm. Subsequently, the First Information Report (‘FIR’) was registered under Sections 279, 337, and 338 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’).
Furthermore, the victim instituted a Motor Accident claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘MV Act’), seeking compensation from the driver, the owner of the vehicle, and the insurance company. The Tribunal, by an order dated 18-02-2020, adjudicated all issues in favour of the victim. While holding the respondents jointly and severally liable, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1,49,88,153 under various heads.
Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded, the victim had preferred an appeal seeking enhancement. Simultaneously, the insurance company had also filed an appeal challenging the award, primarily on the grounds of an alleged absence of a valid driving license and the quantum awarded being excessive and unjustified.
Analysis
On the issue of the Tribunal awarding compensation exceeding the amount originally claimed, the Court referred to Supreme Court’s in Ramla v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2019) 2 SCC 192, wherein it had held that there is no legal impediment preventing a court from awarding compensation exceeding the amount claimed by the petitioners. The Supreme Court had noted that the duty of the Tribunal and the Courts is to ensure just and fair compensation, in consonance with the principles laid down under the MV Act, and that such entitlement cannot be curtailed merely on the ground that the amount awarded surpasses the sum initially claimed. The Supreme Court had further noted that the MV Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation, and the courts are duty-bound to award just compensation.
The Court noted that a single moment can change the course of an entire life. For a 21-year-old girl pursuing an engineering degree, a motor vehicle accident that caused 100% disability of the lower body was not merely a medical condition but a life-altering event that will always affect her physically, emotionally, socially, and economically.
“The trauma of such an accident, particularly at such a formative stage of life, demands not only recognition but adequate and enhanced compensation. This compensation is not charity but is a rightful acknowledgment of the permanent damages inflicted on her ability to live a full, independent, and dignified life.”
The Court observed that the victim, being a promising young woman with aspirations and at the brink of her professional career, the accident brutally interrupted her journey, causing her profound sense of grief and helplessness, thereby affecting her psyche, emotions, social identity, marriage prospects governed by societal perceptions, and the very structure of her family life.
The Court, further, noted that in cases of grievous and permanent disability, such as 100% paralysis of the lower body, the courts must adopt a comprehensive approach to determine just compensation, including not only medical and financial implications but also the irreversible disruption of personal autonomy, educational potential, professional aspirations, and social wellbeing.
The Court noted that Section 168 of the MV Act mandates the determination of “just compensation” for victims of motor vehicle accidents. In Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343, the Supreme Court had interpreted Section 168 broadly and liberally in favour of the victims. The compensation is not merely a mathematical calculation of hospital bills or loss of income but includes a holistic evaluation of pain, suffering, loss of amenities, future medical needs, and the impact on life trajectory. The Court further noted that in Erudhaya Priya v. State Express Transport Corporation Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine SC 601, the Supreme Court had emphasized that where a young girl suffers 100% permanent disability, the compensation must reflect her loss of prospects, marriageability, and independent life.
The Court then proceeded to examine the quantum of compensation awarded-
1. Loss Of Future Earnings and Professional Potential
The Court, while referring to K. Suresh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 12 SCC 274, noted that the loss of earning capacity must be assessed not merely on current income, which may be zero or minimal for a student, but on the reasonable expectation of future income. The Court also noted that due to the disability, the victim’s choice of jobs was severely limited, possibly confined to sedentary roles that do not match her field of training. This amounted to a “loss of livelihood in chosen field”, a recognized head of compensation as per Malay Kumar Ganguly v. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee, (2009) 9 SCC 221.
The Court further noted that while assessing the notional income of the victim, it is only fair, equitable, and in consonance with the principles of just compensation to adopt the lowest placement package as received by her contemporaries as the benchmark.
The Court awarded the total compensation of Rs. 1,26,00,000 under the head of ‘Loss of Future Income’.
2. Loss of Marriage Prospects and Social Opportunities
The Court noted that disability may seriously impair the possibility of marriage, and in Indian society, where stigma and stereotypes persist, the social impact is often more severe for women. The Court further noted that the right to marry and form a family is a fundamental human right protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. Denial of such an opportunity, even indirectly due to a third party’s negligence, mandates a compensatory remedy. The courts must factor in this intangible but real consequence. The Court enhanced the amount from Rs. 3,00,000 to Rs. 5,00,000 under the head of loss of marriage prospects.
3. Physical and Emotional Suffering, Loss of Amenities, and Life Dignity
The Court noted that in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343, it was observed that the quantification of compensation must also account for the permanent pain and discomfort, the need for lifelong personal assistance (caregivers, mobility aids, wheelchairs, physiotherapy), the emotional trauma, depression, anxiety, and social withdrawal and the loss of ability to participate in recreation, sports, or even normal social outings.
The Court observed that in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, (2020) 4 SCC 413, the Supreme Court had laid down that in cases involving 100% disability, whether mental or physical, the Courts must take a liberal view while awarding compensation. It was specifically observed that compensation is to be granted only once, and hence, the courts must factor in not merely the physical impairment but also the enduring mental trauma, emotional agony, and diminished quality of life resulting from such catastrophic injuries.
The Court awarded the amount of Rs. 25,00,000 under the head of pain and suffering.
4. Cost of Future Medical Care and Personal Assistance
The Court noted that paralysis is not a condition that ends with hospital discharge. It brings a lifetime of dependency on medical equipment, home modifications, caregivers, and frequent check-ups. Therefore, the compensation must be structured to ensure sustainability and not force the family into debt or dependence. Hence, the Court deemed it just, proper, and reasonable to allow Rs. 8,00,000 under this head.
5. Attendant Charges
The Court noted that in case of complete paralysis, waist down, the appointment of a trained, professional attendant, available 24 hours a day, becomes not just desirable but medically and practically essential for the survival, safety, and dignity of the victim and is a bare minimum necessity. The Court found the amount of Rs. 21,60,000 awarded by the Tribunal as just and reasonable, comprehensively covering all pecuniary damages relating to the victim’s need for full-time care for the remainder of her life.
The Court noted that any compensation must reflect constitutional values, especially Article 21, Article 14, and Article 15. The denial of adequate compensation amounts to a second injustice, compounding the original wrong with institutional apathy. The Court further noted that in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, it was emphasized that compensation must ensure “social justice to the victim”.
“Enhanced compensation is not charity but is a legal and moral imperative.”
The Court observed that the victim’s life was irreversibly altered by an accident, causing economic, emotional, social, and existential damage. The compensation awarded must be based on restitution in integrum, constitutional guarantees, and judicial precedents. This ensures the victim’s dignity and independence, recognizing the accident as a permanent devastation caused by negligence, not just a personal injury.
In light of the afore-stated reasons, the Court awarded the total compensation of Rs. 19068153 to the victim, along with interest on the enhanced amount.
[Kumari Neelam v. Jai Prakash Natani, 2025 SCC OnLine Raj 2735, decided on 18-06-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Ritesh Jain with Ramdeo Arya, Advocates
For the Respondent: Rizwan Ahmed, Advocate
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
