The Supreme Court set aside a Karnataka High Court order that had drastically reduced compensation awarded to a young accident victim. The apex court made it clear that technicalities from the Workmen’s Compensation Act could not override the Motor Vehicles Act in such cases.
Background
The case dates back to December 1, 2015, when a 23-year-old loader met with a horrific accident while traveling in a lorry from Kunigal to Nelamangala. The vehicle, driven recklessly near NH-75, crashed into another truck. The young man’s right leg had to be amputated below the knee, leaving him with 85% permanent disability to the whole body.
He sought ₹35 lakh as compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT). After examining the evidence, including testimony about his earnings and the medical condition, the tribunal fixed his monthly income at ₹9,000 and awarded a total of ₹19,35,400 under different heads—pain and suffering, loss of income, future medical care, and even loss of marriage prospects.
Unhappy with the award, the insurance company approached the High Court. The High Court, while partly allowing the appeal, reduced the monthly income calculation to ₹8,000—drawing from the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. It then slashed the compensation to just over ₹10.41 lakh.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court was categorical that the High Court had overstepped. Justice N.V. Anjaria, writing for the bench also comprising Justice K. Vinod Chandran, said:
“The High Court misdirected itself in applying the criteria under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923… Once the remedy under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was elected, falling back upon the Workmen’s Compensation Act was not permissible.”
The bench referred to earlier precedents, especially the Mastan case, which clarified that a claimant has to elect between the two Acts but cannot be judged by both simultaneously. The Court stressed that the tribunal had already applied the Motor Vehicles Act correctly by fixing the income at ₹9,000 per month.
On the plea that future prospects (a 40% addition to income for young claimants) should have been factored in, the Court was firm that it could not interfere since the claimant had not appealed against the tribunal’s decision. Only the insurance company had taken the matter to the High Court, and the scope of appeal could not be expanded at this stage.
Setting aside the High Court’s January 2020 order, the Supreme Court restored the tribunal’s original award of ₹19,35,400. “The compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the basis of income of ₹9,000 has to be restored,” the bench held.
The appeal was accordingly allowed, bringing relief to the accident victim after nearly a decade-long legal struggle.
Case Title: Mohammed Masood vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 12567 of 2024