1996 (1) TMI 462 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
- Assessment of compensation for injuries in a motor accident
- Reduction of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal by the High Court
- Award of interest on the compensation amount

Analysis:

1. The judgment involves three appeals by claimants injured in a motor accident. The accident occurred due to a head-on collision between the offending car and the car in which the claimants were traveling. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal initially awarded specific amounts to each claimant, which were later reduced by the High Court upon appeals by the respondents. The High Court reduced the compensation awarded to Dr. (Mrs.) Tandon, her husband, and their minor children, while maintaining the award for the injured maidservant.

2. The Supreme Court acknowledged the negligence of the first respondent and the liability of the second respondent as the insurer. The main issue was determining the correct compensation for the claimants. The Court noted that the High Court's reduction of compensation was too rigid, especially in the case of Dr. (Mrs.) Tandon. The Court considered the extent of her injuries and the impact on her quality of life, concluding that she deserved a higher compensation amount. The Court modified the awards, increasing the compensation for Dr. (Mrs.) Tandon, her husband, children, and the maidservant based on the injuries suffered.

3. Another aspect addressed in the judgment was the award of interest on the compensation amount. The Tribunal had awarded interest at 6% per annum, which the High Court reduced to 3% per annum. The Supreme Court disagreed with the reduction, emphasizing the need for adequate interest considering inflation and the eroding value of currency. The Court ordered interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the application, directing the Tribunal to calculate and adjust the payments accordingly. The parties were instructed to approach the Tribunal for payment within three months of determination.

4. In conclusion, the Supreme Court partially allowed the appeals by modifying the compensation amounts and ordering the payment of interest at the rate of 12% per annum. No costs were awarded in this case.