Mere production of disability certificate does not compel acceptance without proof of actual physical disability.

On April 16, 2017, the appellant was injured when his vehicle (AS-18-E-0418) collided with an offending vehicle (AS-18/D-7799) driven and owned by the respondents.

The appellant sustained a left clavicle fracture and lacerations on his thigh and finger.

He filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Goalpara, awarded Rs. 1,30,360/- with 9% interest, but concluded the appellant suffered no permanent disability.

The appellant challenged this find, seeking enhancement of compensation based on a 40% disability certificate issued by a medical board member (PW-3).

1. Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was correct in concluding that the appellant suffered no permanent disability and consequently awarding a compensation of Rs. 1,30,360/-.

The court applied Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 regarding appeals against awards.

It relied on the evidentiary principles established in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar Anr. (2011) 1 SCC 343, which mandates that a Tribunal must satisfy itself that an accident resulted in a real loss of earning capacity and physical disability, rather than blindly accepting a disability certificate.

The High Court scrutinized the medical evidence, noting that the initial injury report (Exhibt-3) and discharge certificate (Exhibit-6) showed only a left clavicle fracture and soft tissue "degloving" injuries to the thigh, with no evidence of bone fractures in the limbs.

The Court observed that clavicle fractures typically heal and there was no evidence of complications.

The Court rejected the 40% disability certificate (Exhibit-4) because it was issued by a doctor (PW-3) who did not treat the appellant and based the assessment on previous documents without detailing the functional or structural nature of the disability.

Consequently, the Court found the Tribunal was justified in ignoring the certificate as it failed to prove any actual sensory, locomotor, or functional impairment.

The appeal was dismissed for lack of merit, and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was deemed "just". The Registry was directed to return the records to the MACT, Goalpara.