Supreme Court Allows Appeal of Accident Victim in Motor Accident Claim Case — 100% Disability Assessed by Medical Board Must Be Accepted. Compensation Enhanced to Rs.48.70 Lakhs for Comatose Claimant with Full Dependency.

In Favour of Accused
  • 745
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The claimant-appellant, Prakash Chand Sharma, was injured in a motor accident on 23 March 2014 when a Maruti Omni driven negligently on the wrong side hit his motorcycle. He suffered severe injuries including head trauma and a fractured right leg, leaving him in a comatose state with 100% permanent disability as assessed by a duly constituted Medical Board. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alwar, awarded compensation of Rs.16,29,465/- assessing disability at 50% and rejecting the Medical Board's opinion. On appeal, the Rajasthan High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.19,39,418/- by adding 25% future prospects but maintained the 50% disability assessment. The claimant appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the Medical Board's opinion of 100% disability must be accepted as it was not rebutted by any evidence or re-assessment ordered by the Tribunal. The Court recomputed compensation: loss of future income at 100% disability (Rs.24,79,620/-), future prospects at 25% (Rs.30,99,525/-), attendant charges at Rs.5,000 per month for 13 years (Rs.7,80,000/-), medical reimbursement (Rs.1,71,155/-), hospitalization expenses (Rs.18,500/-), physical and mental agony (Rs.2,00,000/-), and pain and suffering (Rs.6,00,000/-), totaling Rs.48,69,180/- rounded to Rs.48,70,000/- with 7% interest from the date of claim petition. The appeal was allowed.

Headnote

A) Motor Accident Compensation - 100% Permanent Disability - Medical Board Opinion - The Tribunal and High Court erred in substituting their own assessment of 50% disability over the Medical Board's expert opinion of 100% permanent disability, without ordering a re-assessment. Held that the opinion of the Medical Board, being an opinion of experts, must be accepted unless the Tribunal has reason to doubt it, in which case a re-assessment should be ordered. (Paras 8-9)

B) Motor Accident Compensation - Attendant Charges - Computation - Following Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, (2020) 4 SCC 413, attendant charges are computed at Rs.5,000 per month for life expectancy (multiplier of 13), amounting to Rs.7,80,000. (Para 10)

C) Motor Accident Compensation - Pain and Suffering - Enhancement - For a claimant in a comatose state with 100% disability, the compensation for pain and suffering is enhanced to Rs.6,00,000 in addition to Rs.2,00,000 for physical and mental agony, following K.S Murlidhar v. R. Subbulakshmi, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3385. (Para 11)

D) Motor Accident Compensation - Future Prospects - Entitlement - A claimant below 50 years of age is entitled to 25% future prospects on the loss of future income. (Para 5, 12)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Tribunal and High Court erred in disregarding the Medical Board's assessment of 100% permanent disability and in awarding inadequate compensation under various heads including attendant charges and pain and suffering.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal allowed. Compensation enhanced to Rs.48,70,000/- with interest @7% per annum from date of claim petition.

Law Points

  • Motor Accident Compensation
  • 100% Permanent Disability
  • Medical Board Opinion
  • Attendant Charges
  • Pain and Suffering
  • Future Prospects
  • Multiplier Method
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2025 LawText (SC) (2) 105

Civil Appeal No. of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.3066 of 2024)

2025-02-10

Sanjay Karol, Manmohan

2025 INSC 180

Prakash Chand Sharma

Rambabu Saini & Anr.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil appeal against judgment of Rajasthan High Court reducing compensation in a motor accident claim.

Remedy Sought

Enhancement of compensation for injuries sustained in a motor accident.

Filing Reason

Claimant aggrieved by inadequate compensation awarded by Tribunal and High Court.

Previous Decisions

Tribunal awarded Rs.16,29,465/-; High Court enhanced to Rs.19,39,418/-.

Issues

Whether the Medical Board's assessment of 100% permanent disability should be accepted over the Tribunal's 50% assessment. Whether the compensation awarded under attendant charges and pain and suffering is adequate.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant: Medical Board's opinion of 100% disability should be accepted; attendant charges and pain and suffering compensation are insufficient. Respondent: No evidence to prove 100% disability or hiring of attendant; compensation is adequate.

Ratio Decidendi

The opinion of a duly constituted Medical Board regarding permanent disability must be accepted unless the Tribunal orders a re-assessment; the Tribunal cannot substitute its own assessment without evidence. Attendant charges and pain and suffering compensation must be adequate considering the claimant's comatose state and 100% dependency.

Judgment Excerpts

The Tribunal questioned the competence of the Medical Board to assess the permanent disability of the claimant-appellant, terming the certificate of the Medical Board as not completely reliable. If the Tribunal had reason to doubt the medical certificate, the option available before it was to have the disability re-assessed but it could not have gone into the details of the determination of disability. The medical report clearly states that the claimant -appellant has no speech or intellectual functions. He cannot stand or walk and has a catheter. Further, he is dependent entirely on others for daily activities. The finding of 100% disability, therefore, appears to be justified.

Procedural History

Claim petition filed before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alwar, which awarded compensation on 18.01.2017. Appeals were filed before Rajasthan High Court, which modified the award on 19.04.2023. Further appeal to Supreme Court by claimant.

Acts & Sections

  • Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Section 166
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Land Title Dispute Against Government — Holds That Government Cannot Unilaterally Resume Land Without Following Due Process and Payment of Compensation. Court Restores Trial Court Decree Declaring Appellants' Title Ba...
Related Judgement
High Court Gujarat High Court Upholds Conviction for Murder in Hired Car Driver Stabbing Case — Circumstantial Evidence Sufficient to Prove Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt. The court held that the last seen theory, recovery of weapon, and motive established the...