Visual Impairment of Helper Constitutes Permanent Disability Warranting Compensation and Future Prospects Under Motor Vehicles Act.

On December 30, 2011, the claimant, Ajit Dhibar (a cleaner/Khalassi), was traveling in a pick-up van when a Lorry (WB-29/3576) traveling at high speed collided with the vehicle

The claimant sustained severe injuries to his face, eyes, and cervical spine, leading to permanent disablement

He received treatment at various hospitals, and a glass particle was surgically removed from his right eye in February 2012

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded Rs. 4,34,400 with 6% interest, finding both the insurer of the Lorry (Oriental Insurance) and the pick-up van (Bajaj Allianz) liable, but directing Oriental Insurance to pay the award

The Insurance Company appealed on grounds of delayed hospital admission, a potentially fake driving license, and the need for a disability review, while the claimant cross-objected for enhancement of compensation

1. Whether the medical treatment and disability were directly related to the accident despite a gap in hospital admission

2. Whether the insurer proved that the driver’s license was fake to avoid liability under policy conditions

3. Whether the disability assessment requires a five-year review before a compensation award can be finalized

4. Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was just and reasonable

The court applied Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, regarding compensation for motor accidents

It adhered to the principle that "just compensation" must be determined based on the claimant's occupation, age, and nature of disablement

Regarding the burden of proof, the court followed the principle that the insurer must strictly prove a breach of policy conditions, such as a "fake license," typically by summoning official records or witnesses

Furthermore, it distinguished between disability certificates for employment concessions and those for motor accident claims, where the assessment is based on the impact on earning capacity at the time of trial

The court rejected the appellant's contention regarding the delay in hospitalization, noting that internal injuries or after-effects of trauma may not manifest or be detected immediately

The testimony of the treating physician (P.W. 3) regarding the removal of a glass particle corroborated the eye injury claimed by the victim

On the issue of the driving license, the court held that mere statements or incomplete seizure lists are insufficient; the insurer failed to summon the RTO or Investigating Officer to prove the license was fake

Regarding the five-year review of disability, the Court clarified that Tribunals cannot indefinitely adjourn matters and must assess disability based on the claimant's movements and occupation at the time of the proceedings

Finally, the Court adjusted the notional income to Rs. 4,000 per month, considering the claimant’s proven occupation as a Khalassi, and added 30% for future prospects to reach a "just" figure

The Court answered that the injuries were proximately caused by the accident and the insurer failed to prove a breach of policy conditions regarding the driver's license

Total compensation was arithmetically calculated at Rs. 4,60,000 (including Rs. 1,00,000 for pain and suffering and Rs. 15,000 for medical expenses) but rounded up to Rs. 5,00,000 to ensure "just and reasonable" relief

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. was directed to deposit the balance amount with 6% interest within eight weeks