Courts, Tribunals Dutybound To Ascertain Functional Disability In Motor Accident Claims: Gujarat High Court
Mere production of a disability or discharge certificate does not prove functional disability; ‘ready to use’ disability certificates issued by Doctors cannot be the sole ground
The Gujarat High Court has held that in motor accident compensation cases, courts and tribunals have a duty to independently ascertain the functional disability suffered by the injured claimant while determining compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 2019.
The Court while allowing the petition, observed that medical assessment of physical disability and determination of functional disability for compensation purposes are distinct exercises. While doctors may opine on physical impairment and may issue ‘ready to use’ certificates, it is the Tribunal that must determine the functional disability by considering the effect of the injury on the claimant’s earning capacity.
The Court further clarified that mere production of a disability certificate or discharge certificate cannot by itself prove the extent of physical or functional disability. It emphasised that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) must examine the nature of the injury, the claimant’s occupation, and the impact of the injury on earning capacity before arriving at a finding on functional disability and awarding just compensation.
Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar observed, “Mere production of the Disability Certificate or Discharge Certificate is not the proof of the physical or functional disablement. The Tribunal ought to have considered the impact of injury on the earning capacity and considering the aforesaid fact to assess functional disability is under the domain of the Tribunal. The application filed by the appellant – original opponent no.3 came to be dismissed by the learned Tribunal but moot question remains that, if the disability is assessed at 90% and without any reason straightaway the learned Tribunal accept the same or body as a whole, even though the same cause prejudice to other side qua evidence produced on record. In view of above, if the party who wants to prove or rebut or wants to produce any rebuttal evidence on record to disprove the fact then it is always open for the party to lead an evidence to disprove the said fact and even keeping in mind the legal principle that who asserts the fact has to prove the same”.
“At this juncture, it is apposite to say that when “ready to use” Disability Certificate is produced on record at that time the learned Tribunal cannot sit as a mute spectator and the Tribunal has directive role in the decision-making process. If the Tribunal having doubt regard to authenticity and correctness of the certificate then second opinion can be sought for. While recording the evidence of the Doctor the Tribunal ought to have played active role equipped with the medical document and ask the Doctor. It is the duty of the Court and the Tribunals to ascertain the functional disability of claimant in all injury cases filed under the MV Act for getting compensation”, the Bench observed.
The Bench while allowing a petition filed by Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., which challenged an order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchmahals, rejected the insurer’s request to direct the claimant to produce a disability certificate issued by a District Medical Board.
Advocate Kirti S Pathak appeared for the petitioner.
The matter pertained to a motor accident claim petition in which the injured claimant suffered serious hand injuries and underwent surgical procedures including amputation of the index finger and removal of part of the metacarpal bone. A private orthopaedic doctor who had not treated the claimant issued a certificate assessing 90% disability, but during examination stated that the disability could be considered around 55% permanent disability of the whole body.
The insurance company disputed the assessment and sought re-evaluation by a competent medical board. However, the MACT rejected the application, prompting the insurer to approach the High Court.
Setting aside the MACT’s order rejecting the insurer’s application, the Court permitted the insurance company to move the Tribunal for directions requiring the claimant to undergo medical evaluation by a medical board and produce a proper disability certificate.
The Court also clarified that if the claimant fails to appear before the Medical Board despite such directions, the Tribunal may draw an adverse inference while determining compensation in the motor accident claim.
Cause Title: Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunil Ishwarbhai Panchal & Ors. R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3605 of 2025
Appearances:
Petitioner: Kirti S Pathak, Advocate.
Respondent: -