TIP Essential When Identity Based On Belated 'Alias' Claims; Conviction Can't Rest On Improved Witness Testimonies: Supreme Court Conviction Based On Flawed Identification Cannot Be Sustained In Law: Supreme Court Acquits Sri Lankan National In UAPA Case Penalty For Misdeclaration Of Power Capacity Is Strict Liability; No Need To Prove Intent Or 'Gaming': Supreme Court Authority To Appoint Includes Power To Dismiss; Visitor Can Terminate 'First Registrar' Under Transitional Provisions: Supreme Court State Cannot Use Delay Or Contractual Clauses To Deny Statutory Compensation For Land Acquisition: Supreme Court State As Model Employer Cannot Deny Regularization Benefits To Workers Due To Its Own Clerical Lapses: Supreme Court Section 106 Evidence Act | Husband’s Failure To Explain Wife’s Unnatural Death In Matrimonial Home Completes Chain Of Circumstances: Supreme Court Tender Condition For Out-Of-State Bidders To Submit EMD Via Demand Draft Not Mandatory If Clause Uses 'May': Supreme Court Affidavit Is Not 'Evidence' Under Section 3 Of Evidence Act Unless Court Orders Its Use Under Order XIX CPC: Supreme Court Exclusion Of Natural Heirs Not A 'Suspicious Circumstance' To Invalidate Will If Testator Provides Reason: Supreme Court 18-Year-Old Rendered 100% Disabled Entitled To Compensation For Loss Of Marriage Prospects And Dignity: Punjab & Haryana HC Right To Life Under Article 21 Prioritizes Preservation Of Mother's Life Over Reproductive Autonomy If Termination Poses Fatal Risk: J&K High Court Director’s Involvement In Company Affairs A Disputed Fact; High Court Cannot Conduct ‘Mini-Trial’ To Quash Section 138 NI Act Complaint: Punjab & Haryana HC Abuse Of Process: Bombay High Court Quashes FIRs Against Lawyer & Ex-Police Chief Sanjay Pandey; Says Complaints Motivated By Vengeance Magistrate Not Bound To Order FIR In Every Case Under Section 175(3) BNSS If Complainant Possesses All Evidence: Allahabad High Court High Court Can Initiate Suo Motu Inquiry Against Judicial Officers Based On Information; Sworn Affidavit Not Mandatory: Gujarat High Court Lack Of Videography, Independent Witnesses During Contraband Seizure Relevant Factors For Granting Bail Under NDPS Act: Delhi 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