2024 INSC 598
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8614 OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 16897 of 2024)
(Arising out of Diary No.38687 of 2019)
Rahul ...Appellant
Versus
National Insurance Company Ltd.
and another ...Respondents
J U D G M E N T
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").
1
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 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,
2
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
3
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.
(ii)Fracture of ulnar stoiloid and evidence of angulated fracture of
distal end of left radius.
4
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
5
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.
.....................................J.
(Sudhanshu Dhulia)
.....................................J.
(R. Mahadevan)
NEW DELHI,
9
th August, 2024.
6
