Supreme Court of India Enhanced Compensation for Motor Accident Victim Citing 100% Disability and Reassessing Monthly Income – Civil Appeal No. 2322 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 21766 of 2024) 

Supreme Court relied on Chandra v. Mukesh Kumar Yadav (2022) 1 SCC 198, accepting oral evidence to establish income. b. Enhanced compensation to Rs.37,51,000, inclusive of medical expenses, attendant charges, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities. (Para 9, 10)

Acts and Sections Discussed:

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XLI Rule 33 

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 279 and 338

Subjects: Motor Accident Compensation – 100% Permanent Disability – Monthly Income Reassessment – Future Prospects – Pain Suffering – Loss of Income – Special Diet – Attendant Charges – Multiplier Method – Functional Disability

Nature of the Litigation: Appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Hangal, upheld by High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, and further challenged in Supreme Court. (Para 2)

Who is Asking the Court and for What Remedy: a. Claimant-Appellant Nur Ahamad Abdulsab Kanavi sought enhancement of compensation for injuries sustained in a motor accident, claiming incorrect assessment of income and disability. (Para 4, 8)

Reason for Filing the Case: a. Dispute over quantum of compensation awarded by MACT, challenging assessed monthly income as Rs.7,500 and disability as 20%. (Para 5, 6) b. High Court enhanced compensation but Appellant sought further enhancement, asserting monthly income of Rs.10,000 and 100% disability. (Para 7, 8)

What Has Already Been Decided Until Now: a. MACT awarded Rs.6,78,000 with 6% interest. b. High Court enhanced award to Rs.25,68,938, acknowledging 100% disability but maintained income at Rs.7,500 per month. (Para 7)

Issues: a. Whether the monthly income of the Claimant-Appellant should be reassessed to Rs.10,000. b. Whether the compensation awarded for 100% permanent disability should be further enhanced.

Submissions/Arguments: a. Appellant contended that income prior to the accident was Rs.10,000 based on oral evidence and was the sole breadwinner. b. Insurance Company argued that the Tribunal and High Court correctly assessed the income and disability. (Para 9)

Ratio Decidendi: a. Oral evidence is sufficient to establish income in the absence of documentary proof. b. 100% permanent disability in motor accident cases warrants reassessment of compensation considering future prospects and associated costs. (Para 9, 10)