MACT Not Mentioning Nature Of Injuries & Relation To Functional Disability, Jumping To Conclusions: Karnataka HC Directs Training

The Karnataka High Court has said that Motor Accident Claim Tribunals are expected to mention the nature of the injuries suffered by the accident victim and the manner in which it will translate into functional disability, considering the facts and circumstances, especially with reference to the avocation of the victim.

Justice C M Joshi said “In umpteen numbers of judgments of the Tribunals, this Court observes that the nature of the injuries and the manner how it would translate into functional disability are seldom discussed. The Tribunals are jumping to the conclusion on the basis of the disability stated by a medical officer.”

He added, “A non mentioning of the nature of the injuries suffered; or describing them simply as grievous or simple; would not reflect that the Tribunals had applied their mind to the nature of the injuries.”

He further stated that “It is necessary that the officers who are manning the Tribunals are to be sensitized with the requirement of mentioning the nature of the injuries suffered by the injured in the judgments. Without the description of injuries and co-relating it to the disability, it is not possible to infer that the Tribunals had applied their mind to assess the functional disability.”

The court directed the Karnataka Judicial Academy for information in devising training programmes.

The bench gave the direction while hearing an appeal filed by the Branch Manager of New India Assurance Co. Ltd, challenging a judgment passed by the Tribunal and allowing the claim petition filed by Ramesh Davkatte and granting him a compensation of Rs 10,11,000.

The insurance company argued that the impugned judgment and award is mechanical. The court said that the Tribunal had confused itself as to whether there should be a 1/3rd deduction towards personal expenses. Therefore, the impugned judgment does not make a proper meaning.

Further, it was submitted that though the Tribunal said that 1/3rd has to be deducted towards personal expenses, it multiplied the compensation by applying the multiplier of 13. Therefore, it is contended that the entire calculation of the compensation amount by the Tribunal is totally erroneous.

On going through the records, the bench noted that perusal of the impugned judgment of the Tribunal would show that nowhere in the entire judgment was the nature of the injuries suffered by the petitioner was described. The impugned judgment refers to the injuries as grievous injuries, but it nowhere mentioned what those grievous injuries were and which of them have contributed to the functional disability of the petitioner.

Thus, it held “Therefore, the basis on which the disability was assessed is not available in the judgment.”

Referring to the deposition of the medical officer and the wound and discharge certificate, the court sai,d “When the nature of the injuries suffered by the petitioner is considered in the light of the deposition of the PW.2, it can safely be said that there is a functional disability of 20%. The petitioner had sustained a non-union and as such the physical disability stated by PW. 2 at 31% can be held to translate into the functional disability of 20%.”

Accordingl,y it allowed the appeal in part and modified the compensation amount to Rs.4,54,800 instead of Rs.10,11,000.

Appearance: Advocate Preeti Patil Melkundi for Appellant.

Advocate Sandeep V Patil for R1.

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 77

Case Title: The Branch Manager AND Ramesh Davkatte & ANR

Case No: MISC. FIRST APPEAL NO.200552 OF 2020

Click Here To Read/Download Order