MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Tribunal and High Court Committed Serious Error in Not Accepting Medical Evidence for Disability Assessment: Supreme Court in AABID KHAN v. DINESH AND OTHERS

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court of India, in a landmark judgment, addressed the crucial issue of appropriate compensation in a motor vehicle accident case, emphasizing the need for accurate assessment of permanent disability under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

This case involves Aabid Khan, who was grievously injured in a road accident, leading to a 17% disability. The primary issue was the Tribunal’s reduction of this percentage to 10% without sufficient reasoning, thereby impacting the compensation awarded.

The Court observed, “…the tribunal and the High Court committed a serious error in not accepting the said medical evidence…” Reinstating the disability at 17% was crucial for fair compensation.

Regarding the appellant’s income, the Court remarked, “Resultantly his income has to be construed at Rs.6,500/- per month…” correcting the earlier underestimation.

The compensation for loss of future income, along with other factors like attendant charges and suffering, was increased from Rs.1,27,700 to Rs.1,92,820.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, enhancing the compensation and instructing the insurance company for payment, reflecting the Court’s commitment to ensuring just compensation in accident cases.

Date of Decision: 9th April 2024

Aabid Khan vs. Dinesh and Others

Latest Legal News