In a significant ruling that underscores judicial protection for accident victims, the Supreme Court of India has substantially enhanced the compensation awarded to a man who suffered a 50% disability in a road accident. The bench, comprising Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and K Vinod Chandran, delivered the judgment on January 7, 2026, correcting what it deemed an erroneous reduction of disability by the High Court.
Court Restores Tribunal's Disability Finding
The core of the legal dispute revolved around the assessment of the victim's functional disability. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) had originally fixed the disability at 50 per cent. However, the High Court, while hearing the case, unilaterally reduced this figure to 40 per cent. The Supreme Court took strong exception to this move.
The apex court firmly held that the High Court's interference was improper, especially since the insurance company had not filed any appeal challenging the Tribunal's 50% disability assessment. Consequently, the bench restored the original disability quotient determined by the MACT, reinforcing the principle that appellate courts should not arbitrarily alter findings in the absence of a challenge.
Recalculation of Loss of Income
The claimant, a 27-year-old salesman, had asserted a monthly income of Rs 8,000. However, as he could not provide documentary evidence, the Court proceeded to determine a just figure. The bench fixed his monthly income at Rs 5,000, applied a multiplier of 17 considering his age, and added a 40 per cent provision for future prospects.
This recalculation led to a major enhancement in the compensation for loss of future income. The Supreme Court modified this head to Rs 7.14 lakh, a significant increase from the amounts awarded by the lower courts. The Tribunal had initially awarded Rs 2.12 lakh, which the High had only marginally increased to Rs 2.23 lakh.
Legal Nuance: Section 166 vs. Section 163A
The judgment also clarified an important procedural aspect. Although the claim petition was initially filed mentioning Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act (which provides for compensation on a structured formula basis), the Court noted the pleadings clearly alleged rash and negligent driving by a transport corporation's bus. Furthermore, the claimed compensation exceeded the statutory limits under Section 163A.
Therefore, the Supreme Court held that the claim ought to be rightfully treated under Section 166 of the Act, which deals with applications for compensation based on fault. This technical correction ensured the claimant was not restricted by the caps of the structured formula.
The amounts awarded under conventional heads like pain and suffering and medical expenses, which were affirmed by the High Court, were left undisturbed. The Court directed the respondent, the transport corporation, to pay the enhanced compensation within three months.
This ruling serves as a crucial reminder of the judiciary's role in ensuring accident victims receive just and adequate compensation, particularly in safeguarding findings of tribunals against unwarranted appellate interference.
