RAHULversusNATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND ANOTHER

                  [2024] 8 S.C.R. 287 : 2024 INSC 598

                               Rahul
                                 v.
           National Insurance Company Ltd. and Another
                       (Civil Appeal No. 8614 of 2024)
                                 09 August 2024
            [Sudhanshu Dhulia and R. Mahadevan,* JJ.]

                            Issue for Consideration
       High Court, if justified in reducing the percentage of disability
       suffered by the pillion rider who met with an accident from 25% as
       fixed by the tribunal, to 20% while determining the compensation
       payable to him.

                                   Headnotes†
       Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Motor accident – Compensation –
       Reduction of the percentage of disability suffered in a motor
       accident by the claimant-pillion rider on a motorcycle from
       25% as fixed by the tribunal to 20% by the High Court and
       re-assessed the compensation – Correctness:
       Held: Pillion rider underwent a surgery in which, plates and screws
       were implanted in his hands – As per disability certificate issued by
       the doctor, the pillion rider suffered 50% permanent disablement
       and the said doctor was also examined as prosecution witness –
       Considering the oral and documentary evidence, the tribunal
       took the disability of the pillion rider only at 25% and determined
       the compensation payable to him – Without assigning plausible
       reason, the High Court re-assessed the compensation by reducing
       the disability suffered by the pillion rider to 20% – Reduction of
       compensation was not required, when there was no basis in
       support thereof – Thus, the judgment passed by the High Court
       set aside and that of the tribunal fixing the disability of the pillion
       rider at 25% restored. [Paras 10, 11]

                                List of Keywords
       Reducing the percentage of disability suffered; Compensation;
       Motor accident; Disability certificate; Permanent disablement;
       Reduction of compensation.

* Author
288                                                            [2024] 8 S.C.R.

                        Digital Supreme Court Reports


                              Case Arising From
       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8614 of 2024
       From the Judgment and Order dated 13.11.2018 of the High Court
       of Karnataka Circuit Bench at Dharwad in MFA No. 103118 of 2014
                           Appearances for Parties
       Manjunath Meled, Mrs. Vijayalaxmi Meled, Ganesh Kumar R., Advs.
       for the Appellant.
       Manu Luv Shahalia, Ms. Manjeet Chawla, Abid Ali, Manek Sharma,
       Advs. for the Respondents.
                  Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                  Judgment
       R. Mahadevan, J.
1.     Delay condoned.
2.     Leave granted.
3.     In the present case, the appellant challenges the final judgment
       dated 13.11.2018 passed by the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad
       Bench, (hereinafter shortly referred to as “the High Court”), thereby
       partly allowing MFA No. 103118/2014 (MV) filed by the Respondent
       No.1 (hereinafter referred to as “the insurance company”).
4.     Originally, the appellant filed a claim petition in MAC No.1587 of
       2013 before the Senior Civil Judge & MACT at Raibag (hereinafter
       shortly referred to as “the Tribunal”), seeking a compensation
       of Rs. 20,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor
       accident that had occurred on 27.01.2013, while he was travelling
       as a pillion rider in the motor cycle bearing registration No. KA-23/
       EC-6369 insured with the insurance company. Based on the oral
       and documentary evidence, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.
       5,38,872/- along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till
       deposit, as compensation payable to the appellant, after taking into
       account the disability sustained by him at 25%. Aggrieved by the
       same, the insurance company filed an appeal in MFA No. 103118
       of 2014 (MV) before the High Court.
5.     After hearing both sides, the High Court re-assessed the compensation
       by reducing it to Rs. 4,74,072/- by taking into consideration, disability
[2024] 8 S.C.R.                                                         289

           Rahul v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Another


     only at 20% and allowed the appeal in part, by the final judgment
     dated 13.11.2018, which is under challenge before us.
6.   The learned counsel for the appellant, drawing the attention of this
     court to Exs.P56 to 60, medical records pertaining to the appellant,
     submitted that the appellant sustained three injuries viz., fracture of
     right radius, fracture of left radius and fracture of styloid process of
     ulna, for which, he had undergone surgery and plates and screws
     were implanted in his both hands. The doctor N.Y. Joshi gave Ex.P57,
     disability certificate to the effect that the appellant suffered 50%
     disability, as a whole. Based on the same, the Tribunal determined
     the compensation under the head ‘Loss of future income’ by taking
     into account the disability at 25%. However, the High Court re-
     determined the compensation by reducing the disability suffered
     by the appellant to 20%, by observing that the doctor who issued
     the disability certificate had not been examined before the Tribunal,
     which is erroneous. It is also submitted that the appellant, being
     an agriculturist, is unable to do agricultural operations, due to the
     disability suffered by him. Therefore, the learned counsel sought our
     interference in the judgment passed by the High Court and thereby
     enhance the compensation payable to the appellant.
7.   On the other hand, the learned counsel for the insurance company
     submitted that the High Court has awarded a just and fair compensation
     to the appellant, considering the facts and circumstances of the case
     and hence, prayed for dismissal of this appeal.
8.   We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
     record.
9.   The only issue that arises for our consideration is, whether the High
     Court is right in reducing the percentage of disability suffered by the
     appellant from 25% as fixed by the Tribunal, to 20% while determining
     the compensation payable to him.
10. The factum of accident and the involvement of the motorcycle insured
    with the insurance company, are not disputed. From a perusal of the
    records, viz., Exs. P56 to P60 - medical records of the appellant,
    more particularly, Ex.P56 wound certificate, it is evident that the
    appellant sustained the following injuries in the accident:
     (i)    Displaced fracture upper 1/3rd of the shaft of right radius and
            ulnar shafts and bone of the right forearm.
290                                                           [2024] 8 S.C.R.

                           Digital Supreme Court Reports


       (ii)    Fracture of ulnar stoiloid and evidence of angulated fracture of
               distal end of left radius.
       Further, for the above injuries, the appellant underwent a surgery,
       in which, plates and screws were implanted in his hands. As
       per Ex.P57 disability certificate issued by the doctor, N.Y. Joshi,
       the appellant suffered 50% permanent disablement and the said
       doctor was also examined as PW2. Considering all these oral and
       documentary evidence, the Tribunal has taken the disability of the
       appellant only at 25% and determined the compensation payable to
       him. Without assigning plausible reason, the High Court re-assessed
       the compensation by reducing the disability suffered by the appellant
       to 20%. We are of the view that the reduction of compensation was
       not required, particularly, when there is no basis in support thereof.
       Therefore, the judgment passed by the High Court is liable to be
       interfered with.
11. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 13.11.2018 passed by
    the High Court in MFA No.103118 of 2014 (MV) is set aside and the
    judgment dated 28.06.2014 passed by the Tribunal in MAC No.1587
    of 2013 fixing the disability of the appellant at 25% is restored. The
    insurance company is directed to deposit the entire compensation
    along with interest as determined by the Tribunal, after adjusting
    the amounts already deposited, before the Tribunal, within a period
    of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
    On such deposit being made, the appellant is permitted to withdraw
    the same.
12. This Civil Appeal is allowed.

       Result of the case: Appeal allowed.



       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain