Permanent disability – Tribunal and the Courts must be conscious of the fact that the permanent disability suffered by the individual not only impairs his cognitive abilities and his physical facilities but there are multiple other non-quantifiable implications for the victim -- The very fact that a healthy person turns into an invalid, being deprived of normal companionship, and incapable of leading a productive life, makes one suffer the loss of self-dignity -- Such a Claimant must not be viewed as a modern day Oliver Twist, having to make entreaties as the boy in the orphanage in Charles Dickens’s classic, “Please Sir, I want some more” -- Efforts must be to substantially ameliorate the misery of the claimant and recognize his actual needs by accounting for the ground realities -- While the money awarded by Courts can hardly redress the actual sufferings of the injured victim (who is deprived of the normal amenities of life and suffers the unease of being a burden on others), the courts can make a genuine attempt to help restore the self-dignity of such claimant, by awarding ‘just compensation’.

(SC) Decided on: 27.10.2021

Less compensation claimed – Court can award more than claimed – Held, there is no restriction that the Court cannot award compensation exceeding the claimed amount -- A “just compensation” is one which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record -- It cannot become time barred -- Courts are duty bound to award just compensation.

(SC) Decided on: 30.11.2018

Concept of -- “just compensation” should be paid to the claimants -- Any method of calculation of compensation which does not result in the award of ‘just compensation’ would not be in accordance with the Act -- The word “just” is of a very wide amplitude -- The Courts must interpret the word in a manner which meets the object of the Act, which is to give adequate and just compensation to the dependents of the deceased -- One must also remember that compensation can be paid only once and not time and again.

(SC) Decided on: 12.10.2018

EFB Scheme Monthly Payment – Deduction of – Future prospects -- Amount of Rs.50,082/- is to be paid to the legal heirs under the EFB Scheme only till date of retirement of the deceased for a period of about 7 years – This payment will cease thereafter – Since the claimants are getting quite an advantage, MACT was right in not taking into consideration the future prospects in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case -- Payment of the amount under the EFB Scheme more than offsets the loss of future prospects – This would be ‘just’ compensation.

(SC) Decided on: 12.10.2018

Other pecuniary benefits outcome or result of death – Deduction not permissible -- Law is well settled that deductions cannot be allowed from the amount of compensation either on account of insurance, or on account of pensionary benefits or gratuity or grant of employment to a kin of the deceased -- Claimants/dependents are entitled to ‘just compensation’ under the Motor Vehicles Act as a result of the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident -- Advantage which accrues to the estate of the deceased or to his dependents as a result of some contract or act which the deceased performed in his life time cannot be said to be the outcome or result of the death of the deceased even though these amounts may go into the hands of the dependents only after his death.

(SC) Decided on: 12.10.2018

Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation -- Court is duty-bound and entitled to award “just compensation”, irrespective of whether any plea in that behalf was raised by the Claimant – In exercise of power under Article 142, and in the interests of justice, Rs. 15,000 awarded towards Loss of Estate to Father and Sister.

(SC) Decided on: 18.09.2018

Interference at Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme court -- When under one head, reasonable amount has been awarded and under another head, nothing has been awarded though it should have been so awarded and at the same time, eventual figure of the award of compensation payable to the claimants appears to be just and reasonable then in such eventuality, Supreme Court do not consider it proper to interfere in such award in appellate jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.

(SC) Decided on: 23.01.2017

Financial assistance to family of deceased employee – Deduction of -- Harmonious approach for determining a just compensation payable under the Act of 1988, is to exclude the amount received or receivable by the dependents of the deceased Government employee under the Rules of 2006 towards the head financial assistance equivalent to “pay and other allowances” that was last drawn by the deceased Government employee in the normal course -- This is not to say that the amount or payment receivable by the dependents of the deceased Government employee under Rule 5 (1) of the Rules, is the total entitlement under the head of “loss of income” -- So far as the claim towards loss of future escalation of income and other benefits, if the deceased Government employee had survived the accident can still be pursued by them in their claim under the Act of 1988 -- Similarly, other benefits extended to the dependents of the deceased Government employee in terms of sub-rule (2) to sub-rule (5) of Rule 5 including family pension, Life Insurance, Provident Fund etc., that must remain unaffected and cannot be allowed to be deducted, which, any way would be paid to the dependents of the deceased Government employee.

(SC) Decided on: 23.09.2016

Future prospects -- Concept of future prospects envisages chances or opportunities for success and further progress in life which is a normal course of event for every human being involved in any avocation -- Even if, keeping in view his ability, capacity etc., one may not be in a position to rise in life, there is another aspect that justifies the grant of addition in the income of the deceased, which is the 'inflationary trend' in which we all are living -- Amount of compensation is required to be just and reasonable keeping the inflationary trend in view, where the prices of the basic amenities of life are likely to increase further – Award of 50% towards future prospects, upheld.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.03.2016

Power of Tribunal to award excess than claimed -- Function of the Tribunal is to award just and fair compensation -- If the amount of just and fair compensation exceeds the amount claimed in the claim petition, even that can be granted -- Claimants are held entitled to a sum of Rs.42,95,840/- as compensation, though in the claim petition compensation has been claimed to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/-.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.02.2016

Minimum wages method -- As per Minimum Wages Act, 1948, a person employed as a driver earns Rs.128/- per day -- Wage rate as per the minimum wage notification is only a yardstick and not an absolute factor to be taken to determine the compensation under the future loss of income -- It would be just and reasonable to consider the appellant’s daily wage at Rs.150/- per day i.e. Rs.4,500/- per month -- Loss of income during the course of his treatment is awarded as Rs.76,500/- (Rs.4,500 X 17 months).

(SC) Decided on: 18.02.2015

Enhancement of compensation without appeal – Power of -- Against Tribunal award, the claimants have not filed any appeal -- Whether the income of the deceased could be increased and compensation could be enhanced – Held, in terms of Section 168 of the Act, the courts/tribunals are to pass awards determining the amount of compensation as to be fair and reasonable and accepted by the legal standards -- Even though the claimants have not filed any appeal, as it is obligatory on the part of courts/tribunals to award just and reasonable compensation, it is appropriate to increase the compensation.

(SC) Decided on: 03.02.2015