While awarding enhanced motor accident compensation, the Madhya High Court has held that the medical evidence regarding permanent disability cannot be discarded merely because the claimant was examined by a doctor one year after the accident.

The High Court was considering an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act preferred by the appellant/claimant against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

The Single Bench of Justice B. P. Sharma held, “Upon consideration of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, this Court finds that the learned Tribunal declined to accept the claim of permanent disability mainly on the ground that Dr. Navin Kothari had examined the appellant after about one year from the date of the accident. In the considered opinion of this Court, merely because the appellant was examined by the doctor after one year of the accident cannot discard the medical evidence regarding permanent disability, particularly when the appellant had sustained a fracture of the patella bone and had undergone prolonged treatment.”

Advocate Ramprakash Shivhare represented the Appellant while Advocate Shreyash Pandit represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The appellant sustained injuries in a motor accident and suffered fracture of the patella bone. He was admitted to various hospitals and underwent prolonged treatment. The appellant claimed compensation for the injuries, medical expenses and permanent disability suffered by him. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.63,970 towards medical expenses and declined to accept the claim of permanent disability. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant preferred the appeal.

Reasoning

The Bench clarified that the medical evidence regarding permanent disability could not be discarded merely because the claimant was examined by a doctor after one year of the accident.

The Bench noted that the appellant had claimed that expenses of about Rs 70,000 were incurred towards medical treatment, whereas the Tribunal had awarded only Rs.63,970 under this head. “This Court further finds that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal towards pain and suffering, hospitalization and special diet is also on the lower side, having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, fracture of the patella bone and the prolonged treatment undergone by him”, it stated.

Thus, partly allowing the appeal, the Bench modified the impugned award by holding that the appellant would be entitled to an additional amount of Rs 50,000 over and above the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal.

Cause Title: Suraj Prasad Chakraverti v. Sukhchain Kudape (Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-JBP:77852)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocate Ramprakash Shivhare

Respondent: Advocates Shreyash Pandit, Kuldeep Rathore

Click here to read/download Order


Madhya Pradesh HCJustice B. P. Sharma

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.