The Supreme Court of India, in Rahul v. National Insurance Company Ltd., reinstated the 25% disability as determined by MACT for a motor vehicle accident victim, which was later reversed by the High Court to 20% for a reduction in compensation calculation to the victim.
Facts:
The appellant had filed a claim petition before the Senior Civil Judge & MACT at Raibag (Hereinafter, “Tribunal”), seeking ₹ 20,00,000/- as compensation for injuries sustained in a motor accident on 27.01.2013 while travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle insured by the insurance company. Based on oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal awarded ₹ 5,38,872/- along with 6% interest based on a 25% disability assessment. The respondent insurance company appealed against the award, and the High Court reduced the compensation to ₹ 4,74,072/- by lowering the disability to 20%.
Issue:
The primary legal issue decided by the court was whether the High Court was correct in reducing the disability percentage from 25% to 20% when determining the compensation amount.
Contentions of Appellant:
The appellant argued that the High Court erred in reducing his disability percentage from 25% to 20%. He cited medical records and a disability certificate from Dr. N.Y. Joshi indicating a 50% disability. The appellant further contended that the Tribunal's assessment based on the head's 'Loss of future income' of 25% was appropriate and that his ability to work as an agriculturist had been severely impaired. However, per the Appellant, the re-determination of compensation by the High Court via reducing the disability suffered by the appellant to 20%, by observing that the doctor who issued the disability certificate had not been examined before the Tribunal, was erroneous.
Contentions of Respondent:
The Respondent contended that the High Court had correctly awarded the compensation amount and that the revised disability percentage of 20% was fair, given the case's facts and circumstances.
Observation of the Court:
The Court noted that the High Court had reduced the disability percentage without providing a plausible reason. The court also observed that the Tribunal's assessment was based on comprehensive medical evidence, including a 50% disability certificate and testimony from the treating doctor, examined as PW2. The Court found that the High Court's compensation reduction was not required as there is no basis in support thereof.
Regarding the above, the bench enumerated that, "Considering all these oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has taken the appellant's disability only at 25% and determined the compensation payable to him. Without assigning plausible reason, the High Court re-assessed the compensation by reducing the disability suffered by the appellant to 20%. We are of the view that the reduction of compensation was not required, particularly when there is no basis in support thereof.”
Decision: The judgement of the High Court dated 13.11.2018 was set aside, restoring the Tribunal's assessment of 25% disability. The Respondent's insurance company was held liable to deposit the full compensation amount as determined by the Tribunal, along with interest, after adjusting the amount previously deposited. Ergo, the appeal was allowed.
Case Title: Rahul v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr.
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 8614 OF 2024 (SLP (C) No. 16897 of 2024)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice R. Mahadevan and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
