District Judiciary Retirement Age | Supreme Court Directs Enhancement To 62 Years To Arrest Attrition Of Judicial Talent Slogans Inciting Armed Rebellion Or Challenging Sovereignty Cannot Be Equated With Religious Expressions: Allahabad High Court Denies Bail Revisional Authority Under AP ROR Act Has Jurisdiction To Direct Inquiry Into Illegal Transfers Of Assigned Land: Andhra Pradesh High Court Indian Law Does Not Recognise 'Joint Parenting' As A Statutory Concept; Child Welfare Remains Paramount: Bombay High Court Order 26 Rule 9 CPC | Court Must Appoint Survey-Knowing Commissioner In Suits Alleging Physical Encroachment And Boundary Disputes: Calcutta High Court Section 33-C(2) ID Act | Labour Court Has Jurisdiction To Recover Consequential Benefits Arising From CAT Orders: Delhi High Court Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) CPC | Procedural Law Is Meant For Advancement Of Justice; Technicalities Should Not Scuttle Opportunity To Lead Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court High Court Can Condition Condonation Of Delay In Land Acquisition Appeals Upon Waiver Of Interest For Delayed Period: Bombay High Court Employees Compensation Act | Insurance Company Not Liable To Indemnify Penalty Imposed On Employer Under Section 4-A(3)(b): Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees’ Compensation Act | Failure To Frame Issue On Employer-Employee Relationship Vitiates Commissioner’s Award: Kerala High Court Default Bail Under Section 187 BNSS | Period Of Investigation Depends On Substance Of Allegations In FIR, Not Merely Mentioned Sections: Madhya Pradesh High Court SARFAESI Act | Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Must Be Challenged Under Section 17 Before DRT, Not Via Writ Petition: Kerala High Court

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