The Gauhati High Court has clarified that even in the absence of all requisite medical bills and despite some treatment being attributable to pre-existing diseases, compensation for pain, suffering, loss of amenities, transportation, attendant charges, and special diet must be granted under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This judgment upholds Supreme Court precedent requiring non-token, realistic compensation, and may be used as binding authority by claimants within Assam and persuasive authority elsewhere.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | MACApp./965/2018 of SRI RABIN TALUKDAR Vs M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. and ANR. |
| CNR | GAHC010138162016 |
| Date of Registration | 17-11-2018 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Of |
| Judgment Author | HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG |
| Court | Gauhati High Court |
| Bench | Single Bench – HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG |
| Precedent Value | Binding in Assam and persuasive for other jurisdictions |
| Overrules / Affirms | Modifies the Tribunal’s award, affirms Supreme Court precedent requiring realistic, not token, compensation |
| Type of Law | Motor Accident Claims / Compensation under MV Act |
| Questions of Law | Whether compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act must be granted for pain, suffering, loss of amenities etc., even if all medical bills are not produced and some expenses pertain to pre-existing diseases. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The court concluded that a lump-sum, nominal compensation fails the statutory mandate of ensuring “real, just, and reasonable” compensation under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Even where medical bills for every expense are not produced, the claimant is still entitled to compensation under various heads including pain, suffering, loss of amenities, transportation, attendant charges and special diet. The calculation of compensation must not be token and should be realistic, keeping in mind the nature of injuries, hospitalization period, and the trauma suffered. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Supreme Court decisions mandating realistic (non-token) compensation for pain, suffering, loss of amenities, and trauma of prolonged treatment |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The requirement to provide “real, just, and reasonable” compensation as interpreted by the Supreme Court; the statutory objective of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Appellant, injured as pillion rider in a motorcycle accident, was hospitalized for a substantial period and claimed compensation for injuries. The Tribunal awarded a lump-sum of Rs. 20,000, citing pre-existing conditions and lack of some corroborative evidence. The High Court found evidence of hospitalization and suffering due to the accident sufficient for enhanced compensation. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Assam |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, future Supreme Court benches |
| Follows | Supreme Court jurisprudence on realistic compensation in motor accident claims |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be token or nominal; it must reflect actual pain, suffering, loss of amenities, trauma, and incidental expenses.
- Affirms that courts may grant compensation under multiple heads even if not every expense is supported by a medical bill, provided hospitalization and injury from the accident are demonstrable.
- Courts must consider both the period of hospitalization and nature of injuries, irrespective of claimant’s pre-existing conditions, unless the expenses are entirely unconnected to the accident.
- Enhances compensation beyond the amount granted by the Tribunal, demonstrating willingness to correct inadequately reasoned or substantiated awards.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Gauhati High Court examined both the factual evidence and the statutory mandate under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
- The court noted that the fact of accident and the injuries suffered were established and undisputed.
- Although some medical records related to pre-existing illnesses or were duplicated and some bills lacked the claimant’s name, the appellant’s claim for enhanced compensation was substantiated by hospitalization records and injury evidence.
- The learned Tribunal’s award of a lump-sum Rs. 20,000 was plainly nominal and not justified by the facts of sustained injury and prolonged treatment.
- The court relied on settled Supreme Court law that compensation must not be token but “real, just, and reasonable,” covering pain, suffering, loss of amenities, transportation, attendant charges, special diet, and related expenses, even if not every item is strictly documented.
- Accordingly, the High Court recalculated and enhanced compensation under specific heads.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Claimed extensive hospitalization and treatment at multiple medical facilities for injuries caused by the accident.
- Submitted that no amounts were granted under pain and suffering, loss of amenities, transportation, attendant charges or special diet.
- Sought enhancement of compensation, arguing the Tribunal’s award was grossly inadequate.
Respondent (Insurance Company)
- Contested the claim, citing that certain medical documents related to pre-existing conditions (diabetes, hypertension, renal failure) and not all were attributable to the accident.
- Pointed out evidence issues, including duplication of bills and lack of corroboration by examining treating doctors.
Factual Background
The appellant was a pillion rider on a motorcycle which met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving by the owner-cum-driver (respondent). He was hospitalized for a considerable period and claimed to have suffered head injuries and bone fractures, incurring substantial medical expenses. The claim was limited by lower court to a lump-sum Rs. 20,000, having considered much of the medical evidence as incomplete or relating to pre-existing illnesses. The appellant appealed for enhancement.
Statutory Analysis
Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act was interpreted by the Gauhati High Court. The court reaffirmed a broad, purposive reading—requiring compensation to be “real, just, and reasonable” for pain and suffering, loss of amenities, transportation and attendant expenses, and medical treatment due to the accident—even where not all such claims are evidenced by perfect supporting documentation, so long as the connection to the accident is credibly established.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
None noted in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms established Supreme Court precedent requiring realistic compensation in motor accident claims, not token or nominal awards.