New Delhi: In a significant ruling highlighting the rights of road accident victims and the responsibility of insurers, a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) in Delhi has awarded ₹48.68 lakh as compensation to a woman who suffered 60 per cent permanent disability after being struck by a government-operated tempo in July 2024. The judgment underscores the tribunal’s approach in ensuring “just and reasonable” compensation, especially in cases involving lifelong disability and loss of earning capacity.

The award was passed by Presiding Officer Charu Gupta while adjudicating a claim petition filed by the injured woman, identified as Saraswati. The case stemmed from a tragic accident that occurred on July 2, 2024, which ultimately resulted in the amputation of her left leg below the knee and permanently altered the course of her life.

The accident and its aftermath

According to the facts placed before the tribunal, Saraswati, then 48 years old, was walking from Kalkaji Temple towards the Nehru Place Flyover to catch a bus. At around the same time, a Gramin Seva tempo, operated under a government scheme, was being driven rashly and negligently. The vehicle hit her with considerable force, causing grievous injuries.

Eyewitness accounts and medical records established that the impact was severe. Saraswati was immediately rushed to the AIIMS Trauma Centre, where doctors assessed her condition as critical. Despite medical intervention, her injuries were such that surgeons were compelled to amputate her left leg below the knee in order to save her life. The procedure marked the beginning of a long and painful recovery, involving prolonged hospitalization, rehabilitation, and psychological trauma.

The tribunal noted that the injury was not merely temporary or superficial but had resulted in permanent physical impairment. Medical boards later certified her as having suffered 60 per cent functional disability, meaning that her ability to carry out normal activities and earn a livelihood had been drastically reduced.

The claim and the insurer’s response

Following the accident, Saraswati filed a claim petition before the MACT seeking compensation for medical expenses, loss of income, future loss of earning capacity, pain and suffering, and the cost of future medical care, including the installation and maintenance of an artificial limb.

The vehicle involved in the accident was insured with Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. During the proceedings, the insurer did not dispute the occurrence of the accident or the involvement of the insured vehicle. Importantly, it did not raise any statutory defences under the Motor Vehicles Act, such as breach of policy conditions or contributory negligence. The insurer also chose not to lead any evidence to contest the petitioner’s version of events.

Instead, Bajaj Allianz submitted a legal offer of ₹18.52 lakh as compensation. However, Saraswati declined the offer, terming it “unjust and unreasonable” given the extent of her injuries, her permanent disability, and the long-term financial and emotional impact of the accident.

The tribunal took note of this stance, observing that while the insurer had admitted its liability in principle, the dispute before it was confined solely to the quantum of compensation payable.

Tribunal’s assessment of liability and compensation

In its detailed judgment dated January 6, the tribunal recorded that the insurer’s admission of liability, coupled with the absence of any statutory defence, made it clear that compensation had to be awarded. The only question that remained was how much compensation would be “just, fair and reasonable” in the facts of the case.

Presiding Officer Charu Gupta carefully examined Saraswati’s age, occupation, income, nature of injuries, and degree of disability. Since there was no documentary proof of her exact income, the tribunal assumed that she was earning minimum wages applicable to a skilled worker at the time of the accident. This assumption was made in accordance with established legal principles, which allow tribunals to rely on minimum wage notifications when precise income details are unavailable.

The tribunal further noted that Saraswati was 48 years old when the accident occurred. Taking into account her age and the 60 per cent functional disability certified by medical authorities, it applied the appropriate multiplier under the Motor Vehicles Act to calculate the loss of future earning capacity.

A substantial portion of the compensation—₹23.47 lakh—was awarded under the head of loss of future income. The tribunal reasoned that the amputation of her leg would significantly impair her ability to work and earn, especially considering her age and the physical nature of most jobs available to workers earning minimum wages.

Artificial limb and future medical needs

One of the key points of difference between the insurer’s legal offer and the compensation claimed by Saraswati related to the cost of installing an artificial limb. The tribunal observed that the insurer’s offer fell short primarily because it did not adequately account for the expenditure required for a prosthetic limb and its future replacement or maintenance.

“The difference in the compensation offered by the insurance company and the one claimed by the petitioners is only on account of computing the expenditure on installation of the artificial limb in near future,” the tribunal noted in its judgment.

Recognising that an artificial limb is not a one-time expense and may require periodic replacement and maintenance, the tribunal factored this into the overall compensation. It also awarded amounts under other heads such as pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life, medical expenses, and attendant charges, acknowledging the multifaceted impact of the injury on Saraswati’s life.

Final award and directions

After considering all relevant factors, the tribunal awarded a total compensation of over ₹48.68 lakh under various heads. This amount was significantly higher than the insurer’s initial legal offer, reflecting the tribunal’s view that victims of serious road accidents must be adequately compensated for both present and future losses.

The tribunal directed Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. to deposit the awarded amount within the stipulated time, in accordance with the law. The judgment also reiterated the importance of timely compliance by insurers, noting that delays in payment can further compound the hardship faced by accident victims.

A broader message

The ruling serves as a reminder of the crucial role played by Motor Accident Claims Tribunals in delivering justice to victims of road accidents. By emphasising the concept of “just compensation,” the tribunal reinforced the principle that monetary awards must realistically reflect the lifelong consequences of severe injuries, particularly in cases involving permanent disability.

For Saraswati, the compensation cannot undo the physical loss or emotional trauma she has endured. However, the award is intended to provide her with financial security, access to necessary medical care, and a measure of dignity as she rebuilds her life after the accident. The case also sends a clear message to insurers that token offers will not suffice when the law mandates fair and reasonable compensation for victims of negligence on the road.