Rajasthan HC Enhances Compensation Of Paralyzed Engineering Student To ₹1.9 Cr | Says It’s Not Charity But Moral Necessity | Tribunal Must Recognise Dreams Denied, Not Just Rupees Lost
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Rajasthan Single Bench of Justice Ganesh Ram Meena modified the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dausa, enhancing it to Rs. 1,90,68,153 in favour of a 21-year-old engineering student who suffered 100% lower-body paralysis in a road accident. The Court directed that the enhanced compensation be distributed partly through fixed deposits and partly released to the claimant, with accrued interest managed according to the Tribunal’s terms.
Holding that "enhanced compensation is not a windfall; it is a moral and legal necessity", the Court stated the constitutional principles under Articles 14, 15, and 21. The judgment addressed the appeals filed both by the injured claimant seeking enhancement and the insurance company challenging the Tribunal’s award. The Court found the objections of the insurance company to be without merit and proceeded to reassess the compensation based on statutory and judicial benchmarks for “just compensation” under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
The claimant, a 21-year-old B.Tech. student at the National Institute of Technology, Uttarakhand, suffered 100% permanent disability in her lower body following a vehicular accident near the NIT Polytechnic Campus. The incident occurred when she was struck by a rashly driven vehicle bearing registration number UK-12-A-7878. The police registered FIR No. 55/2018 under Sections 279, 337, and 338 IPC based on a report filed by the NIT Registrar.
The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation from the vehicle’s driver, owner, and insurer—Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. In their written statements, the driver and owner denied negligence, asserting the vehicle was insured. The insurer contested the claim, citing the driver’s alleged lack of a valid driving licence and claiming contributory negligence on the part of the claimant.
The Tribunal held all respondents jointly and severally liable and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1,49,88,153 under multiple heads, including Rs. 97,20,000 for loss of income, Rs. 35,81,530 for medical expenses, Rs. 21,60,000 for attendant charges, and Rs. 15,00,000 for pain and suffering. The Tribunal assessed a notional income of Rs. 30,000 per month for the claimant with a 50% enhancement for future prospects.
Appeals were filed by both parties. The claimant sought enhancement, arguing the income estimation was too low given her qualifications and peer placement offers. The insurer challenged the award as excessive and unsupported by evidence. It questioned the duplication of future medical expenses and contended that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by awarding an amount higher than claimed.
The Court rejected the insurer’s argument regarding excessive compensation by citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Ramla and Others v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others, which held that there is "no restriction that the Court cannot award compensation exceeding the claimed amount". The judgment stated that "just compensation is one which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record."
Regarding the claimant’s professional prospects, the Court accepted documentary evidence showing that her classmates received job offers with packages ranging from Rs. 5 to 6 lakhs per annum. The Court stated: "it would be reasonable and just to assess her notional annual income at Rs. 5,00,000, even while adopting a conservative approach."
The Court added 40% towards future prospects (Rs. 2,00,000), bringing the total annual income to Rs. 7,00,000. Applying a multiplier of 18, the Court calculated the compensation under the head of loss of future income as Rs. 1,26,00,000.
The Court enhanced the compensation for pain and suffering from Rs. 15,00,000 to Rs. 25,00,000. It stated: "This amount is awarded to acknowledge not only the physical trauma but also the prolonged and continuing mental suffering, and the irreversible impact on the claimant’s quality of life and dignity."
The amount under the head of loss of marriage prospects was enhanced to Rs. 5,00,000. The Court noted that "marriage/companionship is an integral part of the natural life of a human being," and "a young woman with bright career prospects prior to the accident, has suffered a substantial diminution in her prospects of leading a normal marital and social life."
For future medical care, including physiotherapy, medication, assistive devices, and conveyance, the Court allowed Rs. 8,00,000, stating: "the recurring cost of living with a disability is significant and must be factored into any compensation."
The compensation for attendant charges, based on Rs. 10,000 per month for 24-hour care, was upheld at Rs. 21,60,000. The Court stated that "this figure is intended to comprehensively cover all pecuniary damages relating to the claimant’s need for full-time care for the remainder of her life."
The Court recognized the broader psychological and social impacts of the disability: "The emotional, social, and psychological consequences are just as significant—and often more difficult to heal."
The Court directed that the total compensation be revised to Rs. 1,90,68,153.
The Court held: "The claimant would be entitled for interest on the enhanced amount as per the terms of the judgment of the learned Tribunal by treating this enhanced amount to be the part of the original award."
It further directed that: "50% of the enhanced amount shall also be kept in the form of FDR for a period of 7 years and remaining 50% of the enhanced amount shall be released to the claimant."
The interest on the enhanced amount was to be "kept in the FDR for a period of 10 years."
Both appeals were disposed of, with all pending applications also treated as disposed of in light of the final judgment.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Claimant: Mr. Ritesh Jain with Mr. Ramdeo Arya, Advocates
For the Insurance Company: Mr. Rizwan Ahmed, Advocate
Case Title: Kumari Neelam v. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: RJ-JP:23306
Case Number: S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal Nos. 1999/2020 & 1474/2020
Bench: Justice Ganesh Ram Meena
