Home > Recent Judgements > Supreme Court Clarifies On Motor Accident Compensation: No Restriction On Awarding Compensation Exceeding The Claimed Amount
Sept 06, 2024
SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES ON MOTOR ACCIDENT COMPENSATION: NO RESTRICTION ON AWARDING COMPENSATION EXCEEDING THE CLAIMED AMOUNT
In a recent decision of Kavita Balothiya & ors. Versus Santosh Kumar & Anr the Supreme Court of India reaffirmed a key aspect of motor accident claims- there is no restriction on the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (“MACT”) from awarding compensation that exceeds the amount initially claimed by the claimant. This ruling emphasizes the role of the MACT in ensuring that claimants receive ‘just compensation’ as mandated under section 168 of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988.
SECTION 168 of MACT 1988
Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 outlines the responsibilities of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal “MACT” in awarding compensation for motor accident victims. It mandates that the tribunal must provide “Just Compensation” based on the facts of each case, irrespective of the amount initially claimed. The section ensures that victims or their families receive fair compensation for loss, injury or death caused by road accidents, emphasizing the principle of fairness rather than strict adherence to the claimed amount.
NOTABLE ASPECTS OF SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court clarified that even if a claimant initially claims a certain amount, the actual compensation awarded can exceed that figure. The bench, referred to the earlier judgement of Mona Baghel & Ors. vs. Sajjan Singh Yadav & Ors., reiterating that the court’s primary duty is to award fair and reasonable compensation based on the evidence presented.
This ruling underscores that the MACT’s responsibility is to focus on what is just, rather than being restricted by the amount initially claimed by the claimant. Since the Motor Vehicles Act is beneficial legislation, ensuring fairness in compensation takes precedence.
UNDERSTANDING THE CASE
In this particular case, the Appellant was initially awarded Rs. 19,55,250 by the MACT, despite having claimed Rs. 38,34,000. Dissatisfied with the MACT’s decision, the appellant approached the High Court to increase compensation. The High Court revised the compensation upward to Rs. 28,00,375 but refused to award the full amount due to the appellant’s failure to pay court fees on the revised sum. The appellant had only paid fees on Rs. 23,55,250 leading the High Court to restrict the compensation accordingly.
The Supreme Court intervened, pointing out that the High Court’s refusal to award the full compensation was erroneous. The apex court noted that the technical lapse of not paying court fees on the additional sum could be corrected. It allowed the appellant to correct the claim and pay the fees on the remaining Rs. 4,45,125.
The Supreme Court directed that, once this additional fees is Paid within four weeks, the full amount of compensation should be paid to the appellant within an additional four weeks. This practical approach ensures that procedural issues do not hinder the delivery of justice.
FOCUSING ON “JUST COMPENSATION”
The term ‘Just Compensation’ as outlined in section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was a focal point of this case. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the importance of this principle, reminding tribunals and courts that they are not bound by the claimant’s stated amount but are instead required to determine what is fair based on the evidence.
In this case, the just compensation exceeded the amount originally claimed, and the court emphasized that the judiciary’s primary responsibility is to ensure the claimant is adequately compensated, regardless of technicalities surrounding the claim amount. This judgement further solidifies the idea that motor accident compensation is meant to provide relief to victims rather than penalize them for procedural oversights.
ADDRESSING PROCEDURAL HURDLES
Often technical issues, such as the non-payment of court fees, can delay or obstruct the delivery of justice. However, the Supreme Court judgment provides a straightforward solution by allowing claimants to rectify such lapses. This ensures that procedural errors do not prevent claimants from receiving their rightful compensation.
FINAL ANALYSIS
This Supreme Court ruling sets a critical precedent for motor accident compensation cases. By removing limitations on claimed amount and reaffirming the duty to award just compensation, the court has enabled a more equitable process for future cases. It also sends a clear message that tribunals and courts should prioritize fairness, ensuring claimants receive compensation that truly reflects their losses, as long as the evidence supports the claim.
For claimants and legal professionals, this decision offers reassurance that while technical lapses may occur that should not derail the pursuit of justice. The courts, as this case shows, are there to ensure that the ultimate goal- fair compensation for victims- is achieved.
For more information or queries, please email us at
[email protected]
