Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Permanent Disability – Future Prospects – Attendant Charges – Pain and Suffering – Compensation Enhanced Based on 100% Disability – Tribunal and High Court's Findings Modified – Supreme Court Allows Appeal.

The Medical Board's opinion was reliable and should not have been ignored by the Tribunal. The appellant's condition warranted full compensation with future prospects at 25%. Additional amounts were awarded for pain, suffering, and attendant charges.

Final Compensation Awarded: Total Compensation: ₹48,70,000/- with 7% interest from the date of claim.

Acts & Sections Discussed:

• Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 136 (Special Leave to Appeal)
• Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Sections 166 (Application for Compensation), 168 (Award of Compensation), 173 (Appeals)
• Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 45 (Opinions of Experts)

Subjects:

Motor Accident Claims, Permanent Disability, Future Prospects, Attendant Charges, Pain, Suffering, Medical Board, Expert Opinion, Tribunal, High Court, Supreme Court.

Nature of the Litigation:

Appeal against the decision of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, modifying the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alwar.

Relief Sought:

The appellant sought enhanced compensation, asserting that the Medical Board's finding of 100% disability was ignored by the Tribunal and the High Court.

Reason for Filing the Case:

The appellant suffered severe injuries in a road accident, resulting in a comatose state and 100% disability. The Tribunal and the High Court assessed disability at 50%, denying full compensation.

Procedural History:

a) The Tribunal awarded compensation based on 50% disability without considering future prospects.
b) The High Court marginally enhanced the compensation but upheld the 50% disability finding.
c) The Supreme Court re-evaluated the claim based on expert medical opinion.

Issues:

a) Whether the Tribunal and High Court erred in disregarding the Medical Board’s assessment of 100% disability?
b) Whether the appellant was entitled to future prospects in loss of earnings?
c) Whether compensation for pain and suffering, attendant charges, and other damages were inadequately assessed?

Submissions/Arguments:

• Appellant: Argued that the Medical Board’s expert opinion, which declared 100% disability, should have been considered binding. Further, submitted that the claimant was in a vegetative state and required round-the-clock assistance, justifying additional compensation.
• Respondent (Insurance Company): Contended that no substantial evidence was presented to prove the 100% disability claim or necessity for an attendant.

Ratio Decidendi:

• A duly constituted Medical Board’s assessment of disability should be given due weight unless contrary evidence is presented.
• Future prospects apply even in cases of permanent disability.
• Compensation should be just and fair, reflecting the actual impact of the disability on life expectancy and daily functioning.