Suit For Declaration Involves All Co-Owners; Limitation Plea Cannot Be Decided At Interlocutory Stage Of Impleadment: Telangana High Court Mere Proof Of Proper Dispatch Sufficient: Bombay High Court Says Trade Marks Registrar Need Not Prove Actual Delivery Of Renewal Notice Casteist Remarks Inside Private Office Without Independent Witnesses Do Not Attract SC/ST Act: Delhi High Court Private Property Transfer Not Void Under Section 64 CPC If Made Before 'Effective' Execution Of Attachment Warrant: Karnataka High Court Statement Under Section 164 CrPC Is Not Substantive Evidence, Cannot Be Sole Basis For Conviction When Victim Turns Hostile: Madras High Court Murder Simpliciter Is Not A Motor Accident; Claim Under Motor Vehicles Act Requires Causal Link Between Death And Vehicle: Supreme Court Mere Involvement Of Car In Chain Of Circumstances Leading To Death Doesn't Attract Motor Vehicles Act: Supreme Court Proclaimed Absconder Cannot Seek Quashing Of Criminal Proceedings Under Section 528 BNSS: Allahabad High Court Magistrate Cannot Mechanically Discharge Accused Without Recording Reasons Under Section 239 CrPC: Calcutta High Court Trial Courts Must Strictly Follow Mandate Of Section 43D(5) UAPA To Record Prima Facie Finding Before Granting Bail: Delhi High Court Executive Cannot Impose Additional Eligibility Criteria For Statutory Appointments Beyond What Is Prescribed In Parent Act: Karnataka High Court Major Married & Earning Sons Entitled To Compensation For Father’s Death; Dependency Evaluated At Time Of Filing Claim: Gujarat High Court Remaining Extent Of Bequeathed Property After Prior Conveyances Can Be Partitioned Among Legal Heirs: Kerala High Court Exchanging Garlands Not A Recognized Mode Of Marriage; Notary Cannot Act As Marriage Officer: Madhya Pradesh High Court Suspends License

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