S. Kumar (Dead) v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
Background
A mason who was hit by an auto-rickshaw in 1992 suffered a fractured thigh bone and claimed further injuries to his skull and private parts, ultimately claiming 95% permanent disablement based on two doctors' evidence. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal accepted this and awarded about Rs. 4.58 lakh with 15% interest, but the Madras High Court, disbelieving the claim of skull and scrotum injury, reduced the award to about Rs. 2.11 lakh with 9% interest. The claimant (by then deceased, represented by his wife, mother and children) appealed to the Supreme Court against this reduction.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's reduction, agreeing that the Tribunal had erred by simply adding together the disability percentages certified by two different doctors (45% from one doctor who examined him right after the accident, and 50% from a second doctor who examined him 2.5 years later) to arrive at an unsupported 95% figure. It found the second doctor's testimony about scrotal injury and resulting inability to lead a marital life unreliable, especially since the claimant was in fact survived by a wife and three children, undermining that claim. The Court held the High Court's award was not "too low or grossly inadequate" and declined to restore the Tribunal's higher amount or interest rate, dismissing the appeal.
Lesson Learnt
In compensation claims, disability percentages certified by different doctors at different times cannot simply be added together without a sound medical or factual basis: courts will scrutinise such evidence carefully, and exaggerated claims that are contradicted by other facts on record (like family circumstances) can undermine a claimant's credibility.