MV Act | All Injuries Don't Result In Loss Of Earning Capacity, Victim's Functional Disability Must Be Assessed: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court has held that not all injuries result in loss of earning capacity and thus it is necessary to assess the functional disability while considering grant of compensation to a road-accident victim.In doing so, the court noted that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had "mechanically" accepted "disability certificate" of a cashier–who was hit by a four wheeler, at 47% without assigning any reasons. This, the court noted, was in contrast to the report of the court appointed four member medical board which had opined the disability to be 27%.Justice Hasmukh D Suthar noted that the doctor who had initially issued disability certificate to the appellant had admitted in his cross examination that the appellant was admitted for 10 days but "no such papers have been produced on record and there was a fracture of nasal bone"."He has further admitted that he has not done any facial treatment and who had done the facial treatment has not issued any Disability Certificate. Further he has admitted that from the year 2017 to till date he has not seen the patient and further stated that after the span of 5 years he is not aware about the present condition of the patient and if during 5 years if the patient has undergone any physiotherapy treatment then her disability might be reduced or improved. While in cross-examination of the claimant she has also admitted that she is able to do her routine work and she herself is doing routine work and she has denied that she is having any permanent disability. The Tribunal has considered 43.25% disability of the claimant. While coming to the said conclusion the learned Tribunal has not assigned any reason for accepting the said disability and straightaway accepted the same". The court said that in the present case the Tribunal had "mechanically" accepted the disability. The court also noted that an opportunity was given wherein a medical board was constituted to ascertain the disability, and the board had reported disability of 27%. "The opinion of the Medical Experts should not be discarded and that too when the panel of four expert Doctors have opined about the disablement...Considering all the medical papers produced by the claimant before the authority and in view of above the assessment done by the Doctor issuing Disability Certificate at Exhibit 32 and the learned Tribunal has accepted the same, which is not acceptable because without any reason straightaway disability is considered as 74% of both lower limbs is on higher side and for disfigurement 12.5% disablement is considered and straightaway which is added in the said disablement, whereas, the said addition is also not permissible," the court said.The court noted that in the present case, straightaway, 12.5% disfigurement of face was added, in absence of any reasons as to how such disfigurement or disability has adversely affected the functional disability and earning capacity of the claimant.On the question of non-consideration of appellant's face disfigurement, the court said that as per the CT scan of face dated 13.02.2016, the bony nasal septum fracture is found, but no abnormality was detected.The court said that the alleged disfigurement had not resulted or converted in functional disablement and affected the earning capacity of the claimant."All injuries do not result in loss of earning capacity and it is necessary to consider occupation of the injured to decide at what degree the limb has affected his or her function in his or her occupation. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to consider permanent disability certificate produced at Exhibit 32 and arguments canvassed by the learned Advocate for the appellant qua disability," it said.BackgroundIn 2016, the appellant while driving a two-wheeler was hit by respondent no. 1 who was driving a car in a rash and negligent manner, wherein she sustained grievous injuries on different parts of her body.The appellant had moved the high court challenging a 2023 award by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, in the appellant-claimant's claim petition arguing that the tribunal had erred in considering the 43.25% disability while considering future loss of income. The appellant claimed that the Tribunal ought to have compounded the future loss and considered assessment of minimum 86.5% disability.The appellant argued that the Tribunal had committed error by not considering future prospect and not appreciated the fact that the appellant had sustained head injury and multiple fractures of lower limb and disfigurement of the face and awarded least amount towards pain, shock and suffering and loss of amenities.It was also argued that the Tribunal did not consider the loss of appellant's marriage prospect, as she was 20 years old at the time of accident and she was an aspirant of Gujarat Public Service Commission, Union Public Service Commission and Teacher Eligibility Test but due to the injuries she had lost such opportunities.Meanwhile the Insurance Company...

MV Act | All Injuries Don't Result In Loss Of Earning Capacity, Victim's Functional Disability Must Be Assessed: Gujarat High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags