Delay of Fourteen Years and Unproven Disability Certificate are Not Fatal to Beneficial Legislation Claims

The claimant, Sadhram, sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident involving a truck and a tractor-trolley on November 5, 2004.

A claim petition was filed on January 23, 2018, approximately 14 years after the incident.

The 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Balodabazar, awarded compensation of ₹6,83,107 based on a 75% permanent disability certificate (Ex. P/21).

Two appeals were filed: one by the claimant seeking enhancement of the award (MAC No. 402/2020), and one by the National Insurance Company challenging the liability due to the inordinate delay and the failure to prove the disability certificate through medical testimony (MAC No. 827/2020).

1. Whether the claim petition was barred by limitation or vitiated by an inordinate delay of 14 years.

2. Whether the disability certificate (Ex. P/21) was legally admissible and proved in the absence of testimony from the issuing doctor.

3. Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was just and proper or required enhancement.

The court applied the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, noting that at the material time, no specific period of limitation was prescribed for filing claim applications, provided they were filed within a reasonable time.

Regarding the delay, the court looked to the precedent in M/s Purohit and Company v. Khatoonbee and Anr.

For the proof of medical evidence, the court referenced Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and Anr., which establishes that a disability certificate should typically be proved by the concerned doctor.

The High Court dismissed the Insurance Company's objection regarding limitation, observing that no specific issue of delay was framed by the Tribunal nor was it pressed during the trial, and since the Act is beneficial legislation, such technicalities should not defeat a claim after the Tribunal decided it on merits.

Regarding the disability certificate, the Court noted that while the rule in Yudhvir Singh generally requires the doctor's testimony, the Company failed to challenge the document or the claimant's oral testimony during the inquiry.

Given the uncontroverted evidence of prolonged treatment and visible injury, the Tribunal’s reliance on the certificate was held justified.

Regarding the claimant's appeal, the Court reviewed the heads of compensation—including medical bills, loss of earning, and future treatment—and determined that the assessment of monthly income and disability impact was reasonable and based on the evidence.

It further held that the compensation of ₹6,83,107 was "just, fair and reasonable" and required no enhancement.

Both appeals (MAC No. 402/2020 and MAC No. 827/2020) were dismissed, and the parties were ordered to bear their own costs.