The compensation in motor accident claims can be enhanced on appeal to the High Court or Supreme Court based on grounds such as incorrect assessment of income or disability, insufficient awards under conventional heads, or failure to apply the latest judicial precedents. Courts emphasize the goal of awarding “just and fair compensation”, which can even exceed the amount initially claimed if the evidence supports it. 

Enhancement in Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Cases. It usually has remained a trend for High Courts where appeal lies after 90 days after the decision of tribunal to enhance the compensation but just and proper rule in awarding compensation still follows.

Key Grounds for MACT Enhancement

• Incorrect Income Assessment: The initial calculation of the victim’s income might be revised if the court failed to consider actual salary, minimum wages, or provide for future prospects (an increase for potential career growth). The Supreme Court has held that salary certificates should be accepted and not ignored on hyper-technical grounds.
• Improper Disability Evaluation: The percentage of functional disability (loss of earning capacity) must be correctly assessed, often by considering the impact on the victim’s specific profession or job, not just the physical disability percentage. Courts have enhanced compensation significantly in cases of 100% functional disability.
• Inadequate Head-wise Compensation: The amounts awarded for non-pecuniary damages, such as “pain and suffering”, “loss of consortium” (loss of companionship), and “loss of marriage prospects”, may be increased if deemed insufficient.
• Procedural or Legal Errors: Enhancement can be sought if the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) made errors in applying the correct multiplier based on the victim’s age, or failed to follow binding Supreme Court judgments like National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) regarding the inclusion of future prospects and standard conventional heads.
• Appellate Court’s Discretion: Appellate courts (High Courts and the Supreme Court) are empowered to enhance compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act to ensure “just compensation,” even in the absence of a formal cross-appeal or cross-objection by the claimant. 

If you think, you have been awarded less or award is against you, the remedy lies before High Court as FAO i.e. first appeal against order.

The parties will remain the same as before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal. The rationale behind the compensation still have remained the same, to compensate for the loss (death or injury) economically and let the family recuperate with the aid of it.

No one can replace or fulfill the actual loss but it is just a statutory measure for families in distress to come out of trouble and start afresh.

1 Income Assessed wrong.

2 Multiplier w.r.t age.

3 Compensation awarded under different heads not sufficient.

4 Anomalies in the findings of trial court.

5 Latest Judgements not followed.

6 Award dismissed or excess award given.

7 liability fastened on the wrong person.

So the insurer, claimant , owner, driver or anyone affected by the award can reach the High Court for appropriate orders.

MACT being a social welfare key legislation decides the claim liberally in favour of needy and indigent whereas no strict proof of claim is required barring there is no malafide or crook played against the insurance company.

Also, the claimants have to engage a lawyer in coming before the high court which can be muddled out through references or online legal platforms. Parties should spell out expectations clearly in the beginning so that the grounds of appeal can be drafted aptly.

Process for Seeking Enhancement

Hope this article helps you understand the Enhancement in Motor Accident Tribunals a bit better and advance. If you have any queries, please email at advocatesatish7@gmail.com