LexAABID KHAN versus DINESH AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 264 : 2024 INSC 291 Aabid Khan v. Dinesh and Others (Civil Appeal No. 4828 of 2024) 09 April 2024 [Sanjay Karol and Aravind Kumar,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to entitlement of the claimant for enhanced compensation. Headnotes Motor Vehicles Act, 1986 – Compensation – Enhancement – Road accident resulting in injuries to the claimant, a self- employed mechanic with 30 years work experience – Doctors report that claimant suffered whole body disability to the extent of 17% – Tribunal computed the compensation towards loss of future income as Rs.87,700/- with interest @ 7% p.a. reducing the whole body disability at 10% on surmises and conjectures – High Court enhanced the compensation awarded to Rs.1,27,700/- with same interest – Correctness: Held: Tribunal and the High Court committed a serious error in not accepting the medical evidence tendered by the claimant and in the absence of any contra evidence available on record, neither the tribunal nor the High Court could have substituted the disability to 10% as against the opinion of the doctor certified at 17% – Compensation awarded under the head ‘loss of income’ towards permanent disability to be enhanced by construing the whole body disability at 17% – Compensation enhanced to Rs. Rs. 2,42,120/- – Insurance Company to pay the balance amount of compensation with interest @ 7% p.a. [Paras 10-14] Case Law Cited Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Another [2010] 13 SCR 179 : (2011) 1 SCC 343; Laxman Alias Laxman Mourya v. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another (2011) 10 SCC 756; Sidram v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another. [2022] 8 SCR 403 : (2023) 3 SCC 439 – referred to. [2024] 4 S.C.R. 265 Aabid Khan v. Dinesh and Others List of Keywords Compensation; Whole body disability; Loss of future income; Loss of income’ towards permanent disability. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4828 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 21.01.2019 of the High Court of M.P at Indore in MA No. 1614 of 2018 Appearances for Parties Nitin S. Tambwekar, Seshatalpa Sai Bandaru, Advs. for the Appellant. Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, Priyadarshi Kumar, Ms. Stuti Jha, Advs. for the Respondents. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Aravind Kumar, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. We have heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and perused the records. 3. Challenge is laid in this appeal to the order dated 21.01.2019 passed in MA No.1614 of 2018 by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore whereunder the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘tribunal’) by award dated 04.12.2017 in a sum of Rs.87,700/- with interest @ 7% p.a. came to be enhanced to Rs.1,27,700/- with same interest contending inter-alia that compensation so awarded by the High Court is on the lower side and same has to be enhanced. 4. The occurrence of the accident, injuries sustained by the appellant/ claimant in the road accident that took place on 23.04.2013, consequential disability sustained, issuance of insurance policy to the offending vehicle and policy being in force on the date of accident are all undisputed facts. Hence, we do not propose to dwell into those aspects. 5. The only question that would arise for our consideration is: 266 [2024] 4 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports “Whether the appellant/claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation as urged? And if so, to what amount?” 6. Perusal of the award passed by the tribunal as modified by the High Court, would reveal that claimant had sustained compound fracture in the left acetabulum and left rib. Dr. Alok Mehta (PW-5), who had examined the claimant had deposed that whole body disability suffered by the claimant was to the extent of 17% and this fact has been elicited in the cross-examination. However, the tribunal computed the compensation towards loss of future income by considering the whole body disability at 10%. On surmises and conjectures the percentage of disability has been reduced. No reason whatsoever has been assigned by the tribunal for substituting its opinion to that of the expert opinion namely, the doctor who treated the claimant and examined as PW-5. 7. This Court in the case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Another, (2011) 1 SCC 343 has observed: “16. The Tribunal should not be a silent spectator when medical e
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.