MACT Owes Duty To Assess Functional Disability; Cannot Solely Rely Upon Physical Disability Stated In Certificate: Gujarat HC

The Gujarat High Court has enhanced the compensation awarded to a minor suffering from Paraplegia by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal reiterating that it is the duty of Tribunal to assess functional disability.

The Court was considering an Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act against a judgement passed by the MACT awarding compensation.

The single-bench of Justice J.C. Doshi observed, "In case of Raj Kumar Versus Ajay Kumar, 2011 (1) SCC 343 the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the Tribunal is owing duty to assess functional disability. The learned Tribunal cannot solely rely upon physical disability stated in the disability certificate issued by the doctor but has to assess impact of physical disability on earning power including potential earning power of the victim."

The Appellant was represented by Advocate Amrita Ajmera while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Palak H Thakkar.

Facts of the Case

The Minor herein assailed the judgement of the Tribunal in a claim petition filed u/s 166 of the MV Act for the injury of paraplegia sustained by minor granted compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- with 9% interest from the date of filing the claim petition till realization. In 2000, the Appellant was sitting as a rider on a motor cycle, which was being driven at a reasonable speed by following traffic rules, at that point of time the opponent mini truck matador which was being driven in a rash and negligent matter came on the wrong side and dashed with the said motorcycle, due to which the appellant received serious injuries over his skull and body for which aforesaid claim was filed claiming compensation of Rs.15 lakh.

Counsel for the Appellant assailed the impugned judgment and award on the ground that the Tribunal granted compensation so meagerly ignoring the injury to a child aging 5 years at the time of the road accident and awarded penny, pinching and closefisted amount of Rs.2,25,000/- towards compensation. She further submitted that the doctor, who had issued disability certificate has been examined in trial and according to him, the minor claimant has suffered paraplegia in half of the limb. She submitted that the killer road accident has ruined the entire life of the minor and at the beginning of the life, the Claimant became deadwood and could not do any work without assistance of attendant. It was also submitted that father of the minor claimant, who was doing diamond polishing at the relevant time, has also expired in the said road accident, which is adding more wounds in the misery of the minor claimant.

She thus averred that the Tribunal ought to have assessed the compensation for the paraplegia injury seeing it as a cognitive impairment effect and having long life impact on the claimant’s quality of life, as also her inability to form marital bonds.

Reasoning By Court

The Court at the outset noted that the physical disability indicates that the claimant was suffering from paralysis from upper left limb power grade 2,3 and 4. It referred to Supreme Court's decision in Raj Kumar Versus Ajay Kumar, 2011 wherein it was held that the Tribunal is owing duty to assess functional disability.

"The learned Tribunal has accepted the physical impairment as functional disability and 50% has been adopted to compute the compensation. It appears that the learned Tribunal failed to understand that paralysis on upper part of body rendered the minor victim deadwood at the nascent age. Victim Vicky having age of 5 years, as a result of the accidental injury, became just remnant. Though he could breath and survive, his normal living turned into misery and melancholy. Therefore, 50% physical disability body as a whole rather is 100% functional disability. The minor victim becomes useless and kaput for doing any work for whole life and therefore, according to this Court, the learned Tribunal erred in adopting 50% as disability of the minor victim for computing loss of future earning and therefore, said findings deserves to be corrected by holding that the minor victim was fully incapable to do any work. The claimant was minor at the relevant time. Referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Baby Sakshi Greola (supra) as well as considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Master Ayush Versus Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd., 2022 (7) SCC 738, multiplier of 18 is required to be adopted," the Court observed.

The compensation was therefore enhanced.

The Appeal was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Vicky Dineshbhai (Minor) Through Guardian vs. Balvand Singh Hanubha Rana & Ors. (2025:GUJHC:8094)

Click here to read/ download Order