09 August 2024 Civil Appeals >> Civil & Consumer Law  

In a recent judgment of Rahul vs National Insurance Company Ltd. & Another, the Supreme Court has overturned the decision of the High Court of Karnataka, which had reduced the compensation awarded to an appellant involved in a motor vehicle accident. The case revolves around the compensation claim made by the appellant, who had sustained severe injuries in a road accident and was dissatisfied with the reduction of his disability percentage by the High Court.

Background:

The appellant initially filed a claim petition in 2013 before the Senior Civil Judge & Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) at Raibag, seeking compensation for injuries sustained in a motorbike accident that occurred on January 27, 2013. The appellant, who was a pillion rider on the motorcycle insured by the respondent insurance company, sought compensation amounting to Rs.20,00,000 for his injuries.

The Tribunal, after evaluating the evidence, awarded the appellant Rs.5,38,872 along with 6% annual interest from the date of the petition until deposit. This amount was calculated based on a disability assessment of 25%. Dissatisfied with this compensation, the insurance company appealed to the High Court.

High Court's Decision:

On November 13, 2018, the High Court partially allowed the appeal by the insurance company, reducing the compensation to Rs.4,74,072. This reduction was based on an altered disability assessment of 20%, which was lower than the 25% disability initially determined by the Tribunal. The High Court's decision was predicated on the argument that the doctor who had issued the original disability certificate had not been examined before the Tribunal.

Supreme Court's Analysis:

The appellant's counsel contested the High Court's decision, arguing that the reduction in the disability percentage was unwarranted. The appellant, an agriculturist by profession, had been unable to perform agricultural operations due to his injuries. The counsel highlighted that the original disability certificate, which indicated a 50% permanent disability, was valid and had been supported by the testimony of the examining doctor.

The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the case, found that the High Court had erred in reducing the disability percentage. The Court noted that the medical records and the disability certificate supported a 50% disability assessment, which had been considered by the Tribunal. The High Court had not provided a substantial reason for deviating from this assessment.

Court's Ruling:

Consequently, the Supreme Court overturned the High Court's judgment, restoring the Tribunal's original disability assessment of 25%. The Court directed the insurance company to deposit the revised compensation amount, along with interest as determined by the Tribunal, within four weeks of receiving the Court's judgment. The appellant was permitted to withdraw the compensation amount once it was deposited.

This ruling underscores the importance of maintaining consistency in disability assessments and ensuring that compensation reflects the actual extent of the injury suffered. The Supreme Court's decision aims to ensure fair compensation for victims of motor vehicle accidents, particularly those with significant and debilitating injuries.