Expert evidence in MACT claims cannot be discarded without reasons, Supreme Court

The SC on June 16, 2020 {SAVITHA vs M/s. CHODAMANDALAM M.S. GENERAL  INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS} held that P.W.4, the Orthopedic Surgeon, deposed that the appellant had suffered   nine   injuries, of   which   seven   were grievous   in nature and she had to undergo two surgeries which left her disabled from doing house work and unable to walk without the aid   of   crutches. It was held that  her   whole   body   disability   was   medically assessed  at   32%.  It was held that the   Tribunal, by   hairsplitting   the   expert evidence assessed the whole body disability at 15%. The High Court for inexplicable reasons opined that it would be reasonable to determine the whole body disability at 20%.The SC held that the appellant is entitled to loss of future earning on basis of the   whole   body   disability   of  32%   as   opined   by   P.W.4.

It was further held by the Bench, comprising of Justice R.F. Nariman, Justice Navin Sinha and Justice B.R. Gavai, that the appellant failed to lead any evidence in support of her   claimed   profession as   a   tailor   earning   approximately Rs.6,000/­ p.m. and therefore it has rightly been rejected.

In the present case, the appellant, a housewife, was in appeal before the SC against inadequacy of compensation granted to her in a motor accident case.

The SC held that considering the nature of injuries and age of the appellant the award of Rs.25,000/­ only towards loss of amenities and future happiness is inadequate and is enhanced to Rs.50,000/­.

The   appellant   was   therefore   held   entitled   to   a   total compensation of Rs.7,54,910/­ along with interest at the rate of six per cent from the date of petition till the date of realization. The appeal was allowed by the SC.