While Assessing Disability In Motor Accident Compensation Claims, There Should Be Valid Reasoning To Go Behind The Opinion Of Expert: Supreme Court

The appeal before the Apex Court was filed by the appellant claiming 100% functional disability on account of the injuries suffered in a motor vehicle accident.

The Division Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran said, “As far as disability is concerned, the doctor has assessed it at 35% and the Tribunal reduced it to 25% on mere conjectures. There should be valid reasoning to go behind the opinion of an expert, especially in the matter of assessment of disability. In the present case, the doctor who was examined before the Tribunal had specifically deposed that the appellant was unable to sit down and walk and could not lift heavy weights. He was also said to be in constant pain.”

AOR Praveen Swarup represented the Appellant while Advocate A K Soni represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The appellant was travelling in an auto rickshaw when a bus, being driven rashly and negligently, collided with the auto, and the appellant had to be admitted to a hospital. The appellant was hospitalised for about six days, and a surgery had to be conducted on him. An insertion was made to the compound fracture suffered on the fibula of his right leg. He also suffered a fracture of the right hand. The appellant claimed that he was a skilled mason, and a person working with him was examined to prove that he was earning an income of Rs 200 per day.

The Tribunal, however, did not accept the income of Rs 6,000 per month and adopted only Rs 3,000 as monthly income. 25% disability was accepted, despite the certificate having shown 35% disability. A total amount of Rs 1,62,000 was awarded by the Tribunal. On appeal to the High Court, the income was increased to Rs 3500, and a 40% addition was made for future prospects. The High Court also awarded an amount of Rs 25,000 for future treatment and increased the amounts for special diet. Since the appellant, as per the medical records, would have been laid up for about six months, the High Court also granted an additional amount of Rs 10,000 for transportation charges and Rs 21,000 for loss of income.

Reasoning

Referring to the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company (2011) where it was held that a Coolie would get an amount of Rs 4500 as his monthly income in the year 2004, the Bench held that the income as claimed by the appellant, a skilled mason, was to be accepted.

Accepting that the claimant was a skilled mason, the Bench held that his disability will have to be assessed at 35%. The evidence of the doctor indicated that he could not have continued his chosen vocation.

For loss of income, the Bench held that the same has to be Rs 36,000 for six months. The appellant suffered two fractures, one of which was a compound fracture, treatment of which required surgical intervention. The medical expenses were thus increased to Rs 20,000. For pain and suffering, considering the continued partial disability, the Bench increased it to Rs 50,000.

Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench granted an enhanced compensation of Rs 7,19,480. “The above-mentioned amounts shall be paid, after deducting the amount which has already been paid with interest as directed by the Tribunal, running from the date of filing the claim petition, within a period of two months”, it ordered.

Cause Title: Suresh Jatav v. Sukhendra Singh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 821)

Appearance

Appellant: AOR Praveen Swarup

Respondent: Advocates A.K. Soni, Pavan Kumar Vashishth, AOR P. Srinivasan

Click here to read/download Judgment