Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court says award of Rs 5 lakh for pain and suffering was exorbitant; reduces interest from 9.5% to 6% in injury compensation case
Srinagar, Sept. 22, 2026: The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has substantially reduced the non-pecuniary compensation awarded to a motor accident victim who suffered 5% disability, holding that the Tribunal’s grant of Rs 5 lakh towards pain, suffering and loss of amenities was excessive, unfair and unreasonable.
Justice Rajesh Sekhri, hearing an appeal filed by Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company, modified the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Srinagar, in a claim arising out of a 2016 road accident. The High Court held that the claimant, Aijaz Ahmad Najar, was entitled only to Rs 50,000 as non-pecuniary damages, and not Rs 5 lakh as originally awarded.
The court noted that the accident occurred on November 11, 2016, when a motorcycle carrying the claimant as a pillion rider was hit near Pothkha by a Tavera vehicle driven by one of the respondents. Both the motorcycle rider and the pillion rider were injured and later filed separate compensation claims. Medical boards assessed the rider’s disability at 50% and the pillion rider’s disability at 5%.
The Tribunal had awarded Rs 5 lakh each to both claimants for pain, suffering and trauma, along with interest at 9.5% per annum. The insurer challenged only the award in favour of the pillion rider, arguing that the compensation was disproportionate to the nature of injury and that the interest rate was too high.
Relying on Supreme Court precedents, including Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, Kavita v. Deepak, Jagdish v. Mohan and N. Suresh v. Yusuf Shariff, the High Court reiterated that compensation in personal injury cases must be “just, fair and reasonable” and must not become a windfall or bonanza for the claimant. The court said tribunals must separately assess pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages and consider factors such as age, extent and nature of disability, medical expenses, loss of earnings and impact on livelihood.
Justice Sekhri observed that the medical evidence showed the claimant’s 5% disability was curable, not permanent, related to the whole body, did not affect his livelihood, and did not prevent him from continuing work as a carpenter or walking normally. In these circumstances, the award of Rs 5 lakh for non-pecuniary damages was held to be “exorbitant.”
The court also disapproved of the Tribunal applying the same compensation yardstick to the pillion rider with 5% disability and the motorcycle rider who had suffered 50% disability. It said the difference in the severity of injuries had to be reflected in the compensation amount.
On the question of interest, the High Court found the Tribunal’s rate of 9.5% per annum excessive and reduced it to 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the award modified. The claimant will now receive Rs 50,000 as non-pecuniary damages, with the entire compensation carrying interest at 6% per annum.
Bottom Line :
Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation in injury cases must be just, fair and reasonable - For 5% disability which was curable, not permanent and not affecting livelihood, award of Rs. 5 lakhs towards pain, suffering and loss of amenities held exorbitant - Same amount could not be awarded as was granted to another claimant suffering 50% disability - Non-pecuniary damages reduced to Rs. 50,000/- and rate of interest reduced from 9.5% to 6% per annum.
Statutory provision(s): Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 168
