Disability may be reconsidered on remand to assess additional medical evidence, with the insurer afforded an opportunity to contest it.

The Tribunal assessed the claimant’s whole-body disability at 20%, taking one-third of the 59% permanent disability assessed by PW-2, a non-treating doctor.

The High Court had confirmed that assessment in its judgment dated 24 February 2026.

In review, the claimant relied on a 5 February 2026 disability certificate from his treating neurosurgeon assessing neurological disability at 100%.

The insurer opposed reconsideration on the basis of evidence not tested before the Tribunal.

The High Court held that the certificate could not be accepted in review without examining its author and giving the insurer an opportunity to contest it, but remanded the disability issue to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.

Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, provides the basis for review; review proceedings do not permit the Court to undertake an evidentiary exercise requiring examination of a new witness and an opportunity for the opposing party to contest the evidence.

The Court also invoked the beneficial object of motor-accident compensation legislation—ensuring just compensation—as a reason to adopt a lenient approach in the particular circumstances, while preserving the insurer’s right to cross-examine the doctor and contest the additional evidence.

The disability percentage confirmed in the appeal was based on the evidence of PW-2, who assessed permanent disability at 59%, of which the Tribunal treated one-third as whole-body disability.

The treating neurosurgeon’s later certificate was additional evidence and could not be relied upon directly in review because its author had not been examined and the insurer had not had an opportunity to challenge it.

Nevertheless, in light of the beneficial purpose of the legislation and the need to determine just compensation, the Court considered remand appropriate, with procedural safeguards for the insurer.

The Tribunal’s order in MVC No. 428 of 2020 was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration of the extent of disability and consequential compensation.

The claimant may lead further evidence; the insurer must be allowed to cross-examine the concerned doctor and contest that evidence.