D. SAMPATH versus UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.

Citation: [2011] 11 S.C.R. 420 · Decided: 13-09-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
A 
B, 
[2011] 11 S.C.R. 420 
D. SAMPATH 
v. 
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 7824 of 2011) 
SEPTEMBER 13, 2011 
[G.S. SINGHVI AND H.L. DATIU, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 
1988 -
Compensation -
Assessment of - Motor vehicle accident - According to the 
C doctor, the pillion rider suffered 75% disability - Tribunal 
quantified the compensation payable by the Insurance 
Company at a sum of Rs. 3,50,0001- - High Court enhanced 
the compensation to Rs. 4, 90, 0001- , while arriving at the loss 
of earning capacity in a sum of Rs. 8, 16, 0001- and reducing 
D the disability to 50% - On appeal, held: High Court erred in 
reducing the disability to 50% while calculating the loss of 
income - While making disability assessment, there is an 
element of guess work, but that guess work must have 
reasonable nexus to the available material/evidence and the 
E quantification made - The Court has the discretion to accept 
either totally or partially or reject the Certificate so produced 
and marked in the trial but, that, can be done only by assigning 
cogent and acceptable reasons - Thus, disability suffered by 
the claimant is taken at 75% and keeping in view the loss of 
F earning capacity of the claimant assessed by the High Court, 
the loss of earning capacity of the claimant is arrived at Rs. 
6, 12,0001- - Insurance Company directed to deposit the sum 
of Rs.6, 12,0001- with 6% accrued interest. 
A pillion rider of a motor cycle (insured· with 
G respondent-Insurance Company) along with the driver 
met with an accident due to oil spill on the road. The 
pillion rider and the driver sustained injuries and were 
treated in the hospital. The doctor assessed that the 
pillion rider suffered 75% disability. The pillion rider filed 
H 
420 
D. SAMPATH v. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. 
421 
LTD. & ANR. 
a claim petition. The Tribunal quantified the 
A 
compensation payable by the Insurance Company at a 
sum of Rs. 3,50,000/-. The High Court enhanced the 
compensation to Rs. 4,90,000/-. It arrived at the loss of 
earning capacity in a sum of Rs. 8,16,000/- while reduced 
the disability to 50%. Therefore, the appellant filed the 
B 
instant appeal. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1 While making disability assessment, there 
is an element of guess work, but that guess work again 
C 
must have reasonable nexus to the available material/ 
evidence and the quantification made. In the instant case, 
the claimant had not only examined himself to sustain the 
claim made in the petition bl!t also PW-3-doctor, who 
stated that the claimant suffered 75% disability, by D 
referring to the Disability Certificate issued by a 
competent doctor who had treated· the claimant. Though 
the doctor was cross-examined at length by the advocate 
for the Insurance Company, but nothing adverse to the 
interest of the claimant is elicited. Therefore, the Tribunal 
E 
rightly accepted the evidence of the doctor-PW-3. 
However, the High Court took 50% disability into account 
while calculating the loss of income and committed the 
said mistake. It is not said that under all circumstances, 
the court has to blindly accept the Disability Certificate 
F 
produced by the claimant. The Court has the discretion 
to accept either totally or partially or reject the Certificate 
so produced and marked in the trial but that can be done 
only by assigning cogent and acceptable reasons. In this 
view of the matter, the disability suffered by the claimant G 
is taken at 75% and the loss of income of the claimant is 
calculated keeping in view the loss of earning capacity 
of the claimant assessed by the High Court. The loss of 
earning capacity of the claimant is arrived at Rs. 6,12,000/ 
-. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit a .sum 
H , 
422 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 11 S.C.R. 
A of Rs.6,12,000/- after deducting the amount already paid 
or deposited with accrued interest of 6% from the date 
of filing of the claim petition till its payment before the 
Tribunal within two months from. today. [Paras 5 and 6] 
B 
[423-G-H; 424-A-E] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
7824 of 2011. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 12.04.2010 of the High 
Court of Judicature at Madras in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal 
C No. 2098 of 2002. 
D 
Vivek Sharma, P.B. Suresh. Temple Law Firm for the 
Appellant. 
K.L. Nandwani fer the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H.L. DATTU, J. 1. Leave granted. 
E 
2. This appe

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.