Unsupported assessment of 100% functional disability warrants remand for fresh compensation determination.

On 24 July 2007, the claimant was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle when it was allegedly hit from behind by a Santro car driven rashly and negligently.

The claimant, aged 39 years, sustained a fracture of the left leg, including a talus fracture, and underwent treatment and surgery at Astitva Hospital, Surat.

He claimed compensation on the basis that he was earning ₹4,500 per month by driving a tempo.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded ₹8,33,748 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition.

The insurer challenged the award under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, principally disputing the assessment of 100% functional disability, the claimant’s monthly income of ₹4,500, and the award of ₹35,000 towards future medical expenses.

Whether the Tribunal was justified in assessing the claimant’s functional disability at 100% without examining the doctor who issued the disability certificate or otherwise establishing the impact of the talus fracture on his earning capacity?

Whether the Tribunal was justified in accepting ₹4,500 per month as the claimant’s income without documentary or sufficiently scrutinised evidence?

Whether the award of ₹35,000 towards future medical expenses was supported by adequate evidence and a proper claim basis?

Whether the award required reconsideration and the matter should be remanded to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication?

The appeal was considered under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which permits an aggrieved party to challenge a judgment and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

Compensation for permanent or functional disability must be determined on the basis of reliable medical evidence and an evidentiary assessment of how the injury affects the claimant’s earning capacity; physical disability is not automatically equivalent to 100% functional disability.

The claimant’s income and claims for future medical expenses must likewise be supported by adequate evidence.

Where material findings are unsupported by evidence or have not been properly examined, the appellate court may set aside the award and remand the matter for fresh consideration.

The High Court found that the Tribunal had treated the claimant’s disability as 100% without oral evidence from the concerned doctor and without adequately explaining how the talus fracture affected the claimant’s particular vocation or earning capacity.

The Tribunal had also accepted the alleged monthly income of ₹4,500 primarily because the claimant possessed and operated a tempo, without properly examining the evidentiary basis for that figure.

Further, the award of ₹35,000 for future medical expenses lacked sufficient evidentiary support or a clearly established claim basis.

Since these deficiencies affected the assessment of compensation, including future earning prospects, the Court considered a fresh determination by the Tribunal necessary rather than undertaking the assessment itself.

The High Court quashed and set aside the Tribunal’s judgment and award dated 23 March 2016 in MACP No. 45 of 2008 and remanded the claim petition for fresh adjudication.

Both parties were permitted to lead further evidence, and the Tribunal was directed to decide the matter within six months.

The 70% of the decretal amount already deposited in fixed deposit was directed to remain in the fixed deposit until final disposal of the remanded claim, while 30% had previously been released to the claimant.

The parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on 7 October 2026.

The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim.