Compensation must exclude losses arising from pre-existing injuries and unproven loss of earning capacity.

The claimant, Dipen Chandra Das, was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle on 24 November 2014 when an Indigo car, registration no. AS-12-L-6713, allegedly driven rashly and negligently, collided with the motorcycle near Nagaon Paper Mill, Jagiroad.

He sustained spinal injuries and was treated at Nagaon Paper Mill Hospital and Pratiksha Hospital, Guwahati.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morigaon, accepted the claimant’s case and awarded Rs.27,46,124 with interest at 6% per annum.

The insurer appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the finding of negligence, the alleged 50% permanent disability, loss of earning capacity, and the medical expenses awarded.

During the appeal, the insurer sought to adduce additional documents under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC to establish alleged fraud and the claimant’s earlier injuries, but the application was rejected for want of due diligence.

Whether the claimant sustained injuries in the motor accident of 24 November 2014 caused by the rash and negligent driving of the Indigo car.

Whether the claimant’s alleged 50% permanent disability and loss of earning capacity were attributable to the accident in question.

Whether the Tribunal correctly relied on photocopies of medical bills and awarded compensation for all the medical expenses claimed.

Whether the insurer should be permitted to produce additional evidence at the appellate stage under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC.

The Court applied Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, governing appeals against awards of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

It applied Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, under which additional evidence may be admitted in appeal only where the trial court improperly refused evidence, the evidence could not be produced despite due diligence, or the appellate court requires it to pronounce judgment or for another substantial cause.

The Court also applied the principle that compensation must be confined to injuries and losses causally connected with the accident under adjudication.

Relying on Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, 2011 (1) SCC 343, it treated permanent disability and loss of earning capacity as distinct questions requiring evidentiary proof of the functional and economic impact of the injury.

The Court further considered the evidentiary objection under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act but held that, where photocopies were admitted without objection and their non-production was explained, the insurer could not raise the objection belatedly.

The Court upheld the accident and negligence findings because the claimant’s and eyewitness’s testimonies remained substantially unshaken, and the FIR, charge-sheet, referral form, and hospital records corroborated the occurrence and treatment following the accident.

However, the medical records showed that the claimant’s lower-limb fractures and related shortening/deformity arose from an earlier accident in June 2014, whereas the November 2014 accident caused a D12 spinal compression fracture.

Consequently, the 50% disability certificate could not be attributed to the accident involved in the claim.

Since the claimant continued in employment and there was no evidence that he had been permitted to take voluntary retirement or had suffered continuing salary loss, the award for loss of earning capacity was disallowed.

The Court accepted the photocopied medical documents because the claimant had explained that the originals had been submitted with his voluntary-retirement application and the insurer had not cross-examined him on that explanation.

Nevertheless, only the medical expenses relating to the November–December 2014 treatment were recoverable; expenses connected with the 2016 treatment of the pre-existing leg injuries were excluded.

The insurer’s additional-evidence application was rejected because failure of its counsel to lead evidence did not establish due diligence under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC.

The Court affirmed the finding that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the insured vehicle, but set aside the compensation awarded for loss of earning capacity, 50% permanent disability, and unrelated medical treatment.

Compensation was recalculated at Rs.3,10,451, comprising Rs.2,25,451 towards accident-related medical expenses, Rs.25,000 for pain and suffering, Rs.20,000 for transportation, Rs.30,000 for diet, and Rs.10,000 towards litigation costs.

The amount was directed to carry interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization, payable by Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

The insurer was directed to deposit the amount within six weeks, and its statutory deposit of Rs.25,000 was ordered to be returned after verification.