A delayed medical examination cannot discard permanent disability evidence, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held, enhancing a motor accident claimant’s compensation by Rs 50,000 after a tribunal declined to accept his 60 percent disability claim.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Jabalpur: The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a delayed medical examination cannot discard permanent disability evidence merely because the doctor examined the claimant a year after the accident, and has partly allowed his appeal, enhancing the compensation by Rs 50,000 [Suraj Prasad Chakraverti v. Sukhchain Kudape and Others].
Justice B. P. Sharma partly allowed the claimant’s appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in an order dated September 29, 2026.
The case
The appellant suffered a fracture of the patella bone in a motor accident and underwent prolonged treatment in various hospitals. In Claim Case No. 37/2009, the 17th Upper Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur, awarded him Rs 63,970 by its award of March 29, 2011. He relied on an assessment by Dr. Navin Kothari that he had suffered 60 percent permanent disability. The Tribunal declined to accept that claim, mainly because the doctor examined him about a year after the accident. The appellant said the award was grossly inadequate, and the insurance company defended it as rightly assessed.
What the Court said
Justice Sharma disagreed with the Tribunal’s reason for discarding the medical evidence:
“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.”
On quantum, the Court noted that the appellant had claimed about Rs 70,000 in medical expenses against the Rs 63,970 awarded, and found the amount awarded for pain and suffering, hospitalisation and special diet to be on the lower side given the injury and the prolonged treatment. It held that a further lump sum of Rs 50,000 would be just and proper.
The directions
The Court modified the award to add Rs 50,000 over and above the compensation already awarded, carrying interest at the rate awarded by the Tribunal from the date of the claim petition until realisation. The appellant is not entitled to interest on the enhanced amount from January 31, 2014 to August 13, 2024, because of a default on his part. The insurance company must pay the enhanced amount with interest within two months. The remaining findings and directions in the award stand undisturbed.
Why the order matters
Claims often reach the High Court years after the accident, and disability assessments are routinely done some time after the injury. The order shows that the gap between accident and examination is not, by itself, a ground for a tribunal to discard disability evidence, especially where the injury is of a kind that involves prolonged treatment. The Court, however, enhanced the award by a fixed lump sum and did not recompute compensation on the 60 percent disability figure.
Case Title: Suraj Prasad Chakraverti v. Sukhchain Kudape and Others [Misc. Appeal No. 2841 of 2011]
Bench: Justice B. P. Sharma, Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur
Date of Order: September 29, 2026
Appearances: Advocate Ramprakash Shivhare (appellant); Advocate Shreyash Pandit (respondents 1 and 2); Advocate Kuldeep Rathore (insurance company)