HALAPPA versus MALIK SAB

Citation: [2017] 14 S.C.R. 500 · Decided: 15-12-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

, . 
A 
B 
(2017] 14 S.C.R. 500 
HAL AP PA 
v. 
MALIK SAB 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 22911-22912 of2017) 
DECEMBER15,2017 
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND 
DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.) 
Motor Vehicles - Accident - Compensation claim - Case of 
appellant that while attending an event of demonstration of tractors, 
C the driver was unable to bring tractor to halt as a result of which it 
turned turtle and collided with appellant resulting in grievous 
injuries to him - FIR was registered - Appellant claimed 
compensation before the Tribunal - Tribunal accepted the testimony 
of the appellant which was corroborated by the evidence of PW-3, 
D an eye-witness to the incide'}t and awarded compensation to the 
appellant - However. High Court reversed the judgment of the 
Tribunal and held that FIR was registered on the date of accident 
on the basis of the statement of the appellant and that appellant 
was sitting on the mud-guard next to the driver of the tractor and 
this was not a risk insured by the insurer - Upon this finding, High 
E Court rejected the appeal .filed by the appellant for enhancement 
of compensation - On appeal. held: The Tribunal had noted the 
admission of RWJ in the course of his cross-examination that the 
insurer had maintained a separate file in respect of the accident -
The insurer did not produce either the .file or the report of the 
F investigator in the case - Moreover. no independent witness was 
produced by the insurer to displace the version of the incident as 
deposed to by the appellant and PW-3 - The cogent analysis of the 
evidence by the Tribunal has been displaced by the High Court 
without considering material aspects of the evidence on the record 
- Medical evidence on record, shows that lower limbs of the 
G appellant have been paralysed resulting in a loss of bladder and 
bowel control - The medical evidence establishes that the disability 
of the appellant is one hundred percent - On facts, the compensation 
of Rs.8,66,0001- awarded by the Tribunal enhanced by an additional 
amount of Rs. 2,70.0001- . 
H 
500 
HALAPPA v. MALIK SAB 
501 
Appellant, a 28 year old agriculturist met with an accident, 
A 
resulting in grievous injuries to him. Motor Accident Claims 
Tribunal awarded compensation to the appellant in the amount of 
Rs.8,66,000/- with interest@ 7% per annum. High Court declined 
the prayer of appellant for enhancement of compensation. Hence 
the present appeals. 
B 
Allowing the· appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The High Court has proceeded to reverse the 
finding of the Tribunal purely on the basis that the FIR which was 
lodged on the complaint of the appellant contained a version which 
was at. variance with the evidence which emerged before the c 
Tribunal. The Tribunal had noted the admission of RWl in the 
course of his cross-examination that the insurer had maintained 
a separate file in respect of the accident. The insurer did not 
produce either the file or the report of the investigator in the 
case. Moreover, no independent witn,ess was produced by the 
insurer to displace the version of the incident as deposed to by D 
the appellant and by PW 3. The cogent analysis of the evidence 
by the Tribunal has been displaced by the High Court without 
considering material aspects of the evidence on the record. The 
High Court was not justified in holding that the Tribunal had 
arrived at a finding of fact without applying its mind to the E 
documents produced by the claimant or that it had casually entered 
a finding of fact. On the contrary, the reversal of the finding by 
the High Court was without considering the material aspects of 
the evidence which justifiably weighed with the Tribunal. 
Therefore, the finding of the High Court is manifestly erroneous 
and the finding of fact by the Tribunal was correct.[Para 8)(505-
G-H; 506-A-C) 
F 
2. Insofar as quantum of compensationis concerned, the 
medical evidence on the record shows that the lower limbs of the 
appellant have been paralyzed resulting in a loss of bladder and 
bowel control. The medical evidence establishes that the G 
disability of the appellant i's one hundred per cent. The medical 
records have been scrutinized by the Tribunal. The appellant 
suffers from traumatic paraplegia and was hospitalized for 42 days. 
The appellant was 28 years of age when the accident took place. 
The monthly income of the appellant, having regard to the facts 
H 
502 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 14 S.C.R. 
A 
and circumst
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.