Compensation enhanced where the Tribunal’s functional-disability assessment was found unduly conservative.

On 24 September 1997, the claimant was travelling in an auto-rickshaw from Nakhatrana to Devisar when the rickshaw collided with an oncoming motorcycle due to allegedly rash and negligent driving. She sustained a fracture/dislocation of the right shoulder and a fracture of the right superior-inferior pubic rami, and received treatment at G.K. General Hospital, Bhuj.

She filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the drivers, owners and insurers of both vehicles, claiming Rs.1,00,000 with interest.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.67,120 with interest at 7.5% per annum, assessed the claimant’s functional disability at 20%, and made Opponent Nos.1 to 3 liable while exonerating Opponent Nos.4 and 5.

The claimant appealed seeking enhancement, contending that the certified physical disability of 62% had been unjustifiably reduced to 20% functional disability.

1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal required enhancement in light of the claimant’s injuries and disability.

2. Whether the Tribunal had correctly assessed the claimant’s functional disability at 20% despite the medical certificate recording 62% physical disability.

3. Whether an enhanced compensation of Rs.1,00,000, with interest at 7.5% per annum, would constitute just, fair and adequate compensation.

The claim was governed by Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, under which compensation is awarded for injuries caused by the use of a motor vehicle due to actionable negligence.

In assessing permanent disability, the court relied on Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr., 2011 ACJ 1, which requires the assessment of functional disability—namely, the impact of the injury on the claimant’s earning capacity and work—rather than mechanically adopting the percentage of physical disability certified by a medical practitioner.

The governing principle was that the award must represent just, fair and adequate compensation having regard to the injuries, disability, age, occupation and overall circumstances of the claimant.

The High Court examined the medical certificate and the testimony of Dr. H.M. Hadiya. It found that the disability assessment relating to the shoulder injury and the fracture of the right pubic rami appeared excessive and was not fully consistent with the medical evidence or accepted standards.

At the same time, the Tribunal’s assessment of functional disability at 20% was considered conservative, particularly in view of the nature of the claimant’s injuries.

Applying Raj Kumar, the Court noted that no precise evidence of functional disability or loss of earning capacity had been produced. The claimant, aged 55, asserted that she earned income by preparing pickles, papad and khakhara, but provided no supporting evidence beyond her oral testimony. Balancing the medical evidence, the claimant’s age, the absence of definitive occupational evidence and the requirement of just compensation, the Court determined that the overall award should be increased to Rs.1,00,000.

The additional amount of Rs.32,880, together with accrued interest, was directed to be deposited by the Insurance Company before the Claims Tribunal within 12 weeks.

Upon deposit, the Tribunal was directed to disburse the entire awarded amount, with accrued interest, to the claimant after due verification and compliance with procedure, subject to deduction of court fees if unpaid.