The appellant, who sustained severe injuries as a pillion rider in a motorcycle accident on January 27, 2013, sought compensation of Rs. 20,00,000 from the insurance company. Initially, the Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) at Raibag awarded him Rs. 5,38,872, considering his disability to be 25%. This decision prompted the insurance company to appeal, arguing for a reassessment of the compensation.

On November 13, 2018, the High Court partly allowed the appeal, reducing the compensation to Rs. 4,74,072 and adjusting the disability percentage from 25% to 20%. The appellant challenged this decision, asserting that it undermined the serious nature of his injuries.

The appellant's legal team highlighted the severity of his injuries, which included fractures in both arms requiring surgical intervention and the implantation of plates and screws. A medical report issued by Dr. N.Y. Joshi confirmed a 50% permanent disability, which was pivotal in the initial compensation calculation. The appellant contended that the High Court's reduction of disability lacked sufficient justification, particularly since the examining doctor had been presented as a witness.

Conversely, the insurance company's counsel defended the High Court's ruling, asserting that the revised compensation was fair given the circumstances of the case.

Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the High Court had no valid basis for reducing the disability percentage. It emphasized that the initial assessment by the Tribunal, which considered the appellant's actual medical condition and the extent of his injuries, should be upheld. The Court noted the critical impact of the injuries on the appellant's ability to work, particularly in his profession as an agriculturist.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, reinstating the Tribunal's original determination of 25% disability. The insurance company was ordered to deposit the full compensation amount along with interest, ensuring the appellant receives just remuneration for his suffering.

This ruling reinforces the importance of thorough and fair assessments in compensation cases, ensuring that injured parties receive the support they need to recover and rebuild their lives. The appeal was thus allowed, marking a significant step towards justice for the appellant.