The Supreme Court criticized former Punjab & Haryana High Court judge Justice Rekha Mittal for significantly reducing motor accident compensation. It restored the original Rs.29 lakh compensation set by the MACT, questioning why she had slashed it to just Rs.3 lakh. The bench noted that Justice Mittal had a pattern of lowering compensation in such cases.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court expressed its disapproval of former Punjab & Haryana High Court judge Justice Rekha Mittal for significantly lowering the compensation awarded in a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) case.
At the beginning of the hearing, the appellant’s counsel informed the bench about the substantial reduction in compensation by the High Court.
Justice Surya Kant immediately inquired,
“The High Court has reduced? Which High Court?”
Upon learning that it was the Punjab & Haryana High Court and that Justice Mittal had made the ruling, Justice Kant openly criticized her decision-making, stating,
“Haan yahi hona tha wahan. (This was bound to happen). She was known for it. Every case.”
Justice Kant’s parent High Court is the Punjab & Haryana High Court.
The case involved a truck driver who suffered an amputation after colliding with an unattended truck that was parked in the middle of the road at 4 AM without any parking lights. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) had awarded compensation of Rs.29.58 lakh, but the Punjab & Haryana High Court reduced this amount to Rs.3.97 lakh, a decision that faced significant criticism from the Supreme Court.
The bench identified serious flaws in the High Court’s evaluation and reinstated the tribunal’s award with minor adjustments.
The Court noted that the appellant, a truck driver and owner, was 57 years old at the time of the 2012 accident. Following the amputation of his right leg, he experienced 100% functional disability, rendering him completely unfit to drive.
While the MACT had considered this fact in awarding Rs.29.58 lakh, the High Court unjustifiably lowered his functional disability to 80% without providing valid justification, leading to a drastic reduction in compensation.
The Supreme Court pointed out that the High Court had overlooked the evidence presented and failed to offer coherent reasons for the significant decrease.
The Court also disagreed with both the High Court and the tribunal regarding the assignment of 40% contributory negligence to the appellant.
It stated that the parked truck, which lacked parking lights and was positioned in the middle of the road, was the primary cause of the accident.
Also Read: Unpaid MACT & Labour Compensation| SC Seeks Reply from 5 High Courts
As a result, the Court adjusted the contributory negligence ratio to 30/70 in favor of the appellant, holding the owner of the offending vehicle more accountable.
Ultimately, the Court determined that the insurance company would have the right to recover the compensation amount from the owner of the offending vehicle. The tribunal’s awarded compensation of Rs.29.58 lakh was largely reinstated, and the High Court’s ruling was set-aside.