Four Crash Claimants Lose Compensation After Karnataka HC Finds Disability Certificates Created to Fit Claims, Later X-Rays Showing No Fractures

On 25 February 2016, the four claimants were travelling in a Tata Magic vehicle when it overturned during an attempted overtake in Davanagere; the Tribunal found the driver negligent and awarded each claimant compensation for injuries.

The insurer appealed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, disputing the injuries and alleging that medical records and disability certificates were unreliable.

The claimants and vehicle owner did not appear in the appeals.

The High Court considered the absence of records detailing inpatient treatment, the non-production of the x-rays referred to in the wound certificates, and the evidence of the doctor who issued the disability certificates.

The appeals were brought under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which provides for an appeal against an award of a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

The Court’s stated reasoning applied an evidentiary sufficiency approach: compensation for claimed injuries and disability must be supported by reliable medical material, and the Court assessed the medical records and the doctor’s testimony in deciding whether the awards could stand.

The judgment cites no precedent or further substantive statutory rule.

Although the accident itself was not disputed, the Court found the proof of the claimants’ injuries and disabilities inadequate.

The wound certificates recorded x-ray numbers, but the corresponding x-rays were not produced; nor were documents explaining the treatment provided during the alleged inpatient stays.

The disability certificates relied on later x-rays, and the doctor who issued them admitted that those x-rays showed no traces of fracture.

The Court also referred to a separate police case concerning the doctor and a writ proceeding that had resulted in the constitution of a Special Investigation Team to investigate alleged fraudulent motor-accident claims; it treated that material, together with the medical-record deficiencies and the claimants’ failure to counter the insurer’s allegations, as supporting its conclusion that the certificates were created to suit the claims.

It held that the Tribunal had failed to account for the doctor’s admission and the missing treatment records.

Any amount deposited before the Tribunal was ordered to be refunded to the insurer, and the trial-court records were directed to be returned to the Tribunal.