A Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cannot independently reduce the percentage of disability assessed by a Medical Board without providing specific justifications, particularly when the disability significantly impairs the claimant's professional capacity, constituting functional disability.

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30.03.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

P.M. MANOJ, J

MACA No. 3328 of 2023

Dated this the 30th day of March, 2026

JUDGMENT

The above appeal is filed against the award dated 19.03.2022 in OP(MV) No. 1054 of 2016 of the MACT, Taliparamba.

The brief facts of the case are that on 30.01.2010, at approximately 6 a.m., the petitioner was traveling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle (Registration No. KL-13-S-6698). The vehicle was ridden by the 1st respondent, owned by the 2nd respondent, and insured with the United India Insurance Company (the 3rd respondent).

Upon reaching the vicinity of Cheramkunnu Church, the 1st respondent suddenly swerved the motorcycle to avoid a collision with an oncoming lorry. Consequently, the appellant fell onto the road, and the tyre of the lorry ran over the toes of his right leg. At the time of the accident, the petitioner was 21 years old and employed as a driver with a monthly income of Rs. 9,000/-. The Tribunal examined the negligence of the 1st respondent, the nature of the injuries sustained, the petitioner’s entitlement to compensation, the liability of the insurance company and the quantum of compensation to be awarded.

The Tribunal considered Exhibits A1 to A6 series of documents, and the Ext.X1 report of the Medical Board. The Tribunal found that the 1st respondent, who was riding the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner, was liable to compensate the claimant. The claims were considered under various heads: loss of earnings, partial loss of earning, transportation to the hospital, extra nourishment, damage to clothing and articles, bystander expenses, medical expenses, compensation for pain and suffering, loss of amenities, permanent disability, and loss of earning power.

However, the Tribunal declined to grant compensation for partial loss of earnings and loss of earning power. Conversely, the Tribunal awarded bystander expenses, even though they were not explicitly claimed. Regarding the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the argument concerning the permanent disability suffered by the petitioner warrants closer scrutiny.

However, with respect to the other heads of compensation, I find no reason to reconsider the Tribunal’s findings.

At the time of the accident, the petitioner was 21 years of age and sustained serious injuries, as discernible from the Ext.A2 Wound Certificate, which reads as follows:

1. Degloving injury to the right knee (15x15 cm) over the medial aspect.

2. Complete degloving injury over the right foot with deformity.

3. Tenderness over the pubic region.

4. Fracture of the right fibular head.

5. Fracture of the right pubic bone.

The Ext. X1 certificate issued by the Medical Board assesses the appellant as having 58% permanent disability. The Board has also recorded the specific physical limitations and inabilities observed during the examination. The petitioner has produced the Annexure A1 series of photographs along with I.A. No. 2 of 2024, which includes X-rays taken at St. Martin De Porres Hospital, Cherukunnu, Kannur. The images produced alongside this appeal shock the conscience of this Court. It appears that the functionality of the appellant’s right leg is grossly impaired; notably, the appellant’s avocation is that of a driver.

A meticulous examination of the judgment, specifically paragraph 18, reveals that the Tribunal considered the medical certificate and noted the 58% permanent disability assessed by the Medical Board. The Tribunal further recorded that the Board had verified the injuries sustained and the treatment undergone. Having opted to accept Ext. X1, the Tribunal nonetheless fixed the loss of earning capacity at only 20%, citing Pappu Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar [2022 ACJ 2695 SC] regarding the calculation of future prospects.

In doing so, the Tribunal committed a patent error. In Rajkumar v. Ajay Kumar [2011 (1) SCC 343], the Apex