"Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Reasonable Doubt Arising from Sole Testimony in Absence of Corroboration, Power Cut Compounded Identification Difficulties: Supreme Court Acquits Appellants in Murder Case    |     ED Can Investigate Without FIRs: PH High Court Affirms PMLA’s Broad Powers    |     Accident Claim | Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Vicariously Attributed to Passengers: Supreme Court    |     Default Bail | Indefeasible Right to Bail Prevails: Allahabad High Court Faults Special Judge for Delayed Extension of Investigation    |     “Habitual Offenders Cannot Satisfy Bail Conditions Under NDPS Act”: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to Accused with Extensive Criminal Record    |     Delhi High Court Denies Substitution for Son Due to 'Gross Unexplained Delay' of Over Six Years in Trademark Suit    |     Section 4B of the Tenancy Act Cannot Override Land Exemptions for Public Development: Bombay High Court    |     Suspicion, However High, Is Not a Substitute for Proof: Calcutta High Court Orders Reinstatement of Coast Guard Officer Dismissed on Suspicion of Forgery    |     Age Not Conclusively Proven, Prosecutrix Found to be a Consenting Party: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Accused in POCSO Case    |     'Company's Absence in Prosecution Renders Case Void': Himachal High Court Quashes Complaint Against Pharma Directors    |     Preventive Detention Cannot Sacrifice Personal Liberty on Mere Allegations: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention of Local Journalist    |     J.J. Act | Accused's Age at Offense Critical - Juvenility Must Be Addressed: Kerala High Court Directs Special Court to Reframe Charges in POCSO Case    |     Foreign Laws Must Be Proved Like Facts: Delhi HC Grants Bail in Cryptocurrency Money Laundering Case    |    

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

Similar News