Delay In Medical Examination Cannot Discard Evidence Of Permanent Disability: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur has enhanced the compensation payable to a road accident victim who suffered a fractured patella, holding that a doctor examining an injured person a year after the accident is no reason, by itself, to discard medical evidence of permanent disability.

Justice B. P. Sharma was hearing a Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, filed by Suraj Prasad Chakraverti against an award dated March 29, 2011, passed by the 17th Upper Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur, in Claim Case No. 37/2009. The Tribunal had awarded him Rs 63,970 and declined to accept his claim of permanent disability.

The appellant had sustained injuries in a motor accident, including a fracture of the patella bone. He was admitted to several hospitals and underwent prolonged treatment. Dissatisfied with the Tribunal's award, he approached the High Court seeking enhancement.

Appearing for the appellant, advocate Ramprakash Shivhare argued that the compensation was "grossly inadequate" and did not match the nature and gravity of the injuries. He submitted that the Tribunal had not properly appreciated the testimony of Dr. Navin Kothari, who had assessed the appellant's permanent disability at 60 per cent. He added that medical bills and investigation reports had been produced but not properly considered.

The respondents opposed the appeal. Advocate Shreyash Pandit appeared for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, while advocate Kuldeep Rathore represented respondent No. 3, the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company defended the award, submitting that the Tribunal had assigned "cogent reasons" for rejecting the disability claim and that the appellant had failed to establish his case through reliable evidence.

After hearing the parties and examining the record, the High Court found fault with the Tribunal's reasoning on disability. The Court noted that the Tribunal had refused to accept the claim mainly because Dr. Kothari had examined the appellant about one year after the accident.

Rejecting this approach, Justice Sharma observed, "In the considered opinion of this Court, merely because the appellant was examined by the doctor after one year of the accident cannot discard the medical evidence regarding permanent disability, particularly when the appellant had sustained a fracture of the patella bone and had undergone prolonged treatment."

The Court then turned to the medical expenses. It recorded that the appellant had produced medical bills and investigation reports relating to his treatment and had claimed that about Rs 70,000 was spent on it, whereas the Tribunal had awarded only Rs 63,970 under that head.

The Court also found the amounts granted for pain and suffering, hospitalisation and special diet to be inadequate. It held that these were "on the lower side", having regard to the nature of the injuries and the prolonged treatment the appellant had undergone.

Taking the overall facts and circumstances into account, the Court concluded that a further lump-sum amount of Rs 50,000 would be "just and proper compensation" over and above what the Tribunal had already awarded. The order does not separately quantify compensation for the claimed permanent disability.

Accordingly, the Court modified the award and held the appellant entitled to an additional Rs 50,000. This enhanced amount will carry interest at the rate fixed by the Tribunal, from the date of the claim petition until realisation.

However, the Court carved out an exception on interest. It directed that the appellant would not be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount for the period from January 31, 2014, to August 13, 2024, "because there is a default on the part of appellant." The order does not elaborate on the nature of that default.

The Insurance Company has been directed to pay the interest, excluding the aforesaid period, along with the enhanced amount within two months.

Concluding that the appeal deserved to succeed to this limited extent, the High Court partly allowed it. The remaining findings and directions contained in the impugned Tribunal award were left undisturbed.

Case Title: Suraj Prasad Chakraverti vs. Sukhchain Kudape and Others

Date of Order: September 29, 2026

Bench: Justice B. P. Sharma