Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court, on February 10, 2025, enhanced the compensation for a man who was left comatose following a road accident in 2014, allowing his contention that the medical opinion terming his disability to the extent of 100% had wrongly been ignored in the case.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Manmohan raised the compensation amount from Rs 19.39 lakh to 48.69 lakh on an appeal by claimant-appellant Prakash Chand Sharma.

The court noted that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had questioned the competence of the Medical Board to assess the permanent disability of the claimant-appellant, terming the certificate of the Medical Board as not completely reliable.

"If the tribunal had reason to doubt the medical certificate, the option available before it was to have the disability re-assessed but it could not have gone into the details of the determination of disability. Since that course of action has not been adopted, the opinion of the Medical Board, being an opinion of the experts is to be treated as such. That apart, the comatose state of the claimant-appellant is not in dispute," the bench said.

On March 23, 2014, the claimant-appellant was returning to his village on his motorcycle, when another vehicle, a Maruti Omni, came from the opposite direction, on the wrong side of the road. The claimant appellant suffered numerous injuries, including on the head and his right leg. An FIR was registered at Police Station Tehla, and he was taken, first to Katta Hospital, Bandikui, and thereafter, to Sawai Mansingh Hospital, Jaipur. Though he survived his accident, he was in a comatose state.

The tribunal had held that the respondents had not presented any evidence which would dislodge the case of the claimant-appellant. It also found that the Maruti Omni had indeed been responsible for the accident, being driven at high speed and negligently. It had computed the total compensation payable as Rs 16,29,465.

On appeal, the Rajasthan High Court said that it was an admitted position that no neurosurgeon and treating doctor were produced by the claimant to prove 100% disability before the tribunal.

"So, in my considered opinion, trial court rightly came to the conclusion that disability certificate was not duly proved by the claimant. So, the Tribunal rightly assessed the disability of the injured to the extent of 50%," the single judge had said.

"It is also admitted position that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount regarding future prospects of the injured...So, in my considered opinion, claimant was below 50 years of age, claimant is entitled to get 25% towards future prospects," the single judge had added.

The high court had modified the tribunal's order to the extent that the amount of compensation receivable by the claimant was Rs 19,39,418 instead of Rs 16,29,465.

In his appeal, the claimant-appellant submitted that the opinion of the Medical Board computing disability had been ignored and the tribunal had substituted its own view, which was in the teeth of the judgment of the top court in Union of India Vs Talwinder Singh (2012) and Raj Kumar Vs Ajay Kumar (2011).

The respondent-Insurance Company contended that no evidence had been led to substantiate the position that the claimant-appellant suffered from 100% disability. It further denied that the opinion of the Medical Board stood disbelieved. It also said that no evidence had been led to show that a medical attendant had been hired and a salary of Rs 6,000 per month was paid to such an attendant.

The bench, however, said, "We find force in the submissions of the appellant. The duly constituted Medical Board has ascertained the permanent disability of the claimant appellant to be 100%".

The court pointed out that the medical report clearly stated that the claimant-appellant had no speech or intellectual functions.

"He cannot stand or walk and has a catheter. Further, he is dependent entirely on others for daily activities. The finding of 100% disability, therefore, appears to be justified. As such, the compensation ought to be recomputed," the bench said.

It noted that for a person in a coma who was entirely dependent on others, a meagre sum of Rs 2,00,000 stood awarded by the tribunal towards mental and physical agony, pain, and loss of amenities. The high court had also confirmed the same. "We find the same to be insufficient," the bench said.

Allowing the appeal, the court held the amount payable to the claimant-appellant as Rs 48,70,000 with an interest at the rate of 7% per annum due from the date of the claim petition.

Case Title: Prakash Chand Sharma Vs Ram Babu Saini & Anr