Disability certificate for job, education not same as motor accident claims: Calcutta High Court upholds victim’s compensation

Findings

• Mere delay in lodging the FIR is not a ground to disbelieve the victim’s case since he was hospitalised for 11 days; therfore delay is not “inordinate”.
• Responding to the claim of the insurance company that the victim did not review the disability certificate after 5 years, the court found that the disability certificate was issued in November 2014 during the pendency of the claim case.
• In a motor accident claim, a person who files a temporary disability certificate cannot be compelled to wait for the validity period to expire and obtain a renewed certificate, nor can he be forced to secure a review certificate during the pendency of proceedings.

• After considering the “quantum” of compensation, the “age” of the victim, and the “multiplier” applied, the court held that the compensation awarded by the trial court was “just and reasonable”, requiring no “interference”.
• Upholding the trial court’s December 2024 order, the court held that the victim would be entitled to withdraw the awarded sum along with interest at 4% per annum from the date of filing the claim case till deposit, along with accrued interest.

Arguments

• The insurance company’s counsel, advocate Sayanti Santra, argued that the lower court made an error by passing the award since the case was filed after three years from the date of the accident, and the FIR was lodged 17 days after the accident.
• Santra further submitted that the disability certificate was valid till November 2019, and without reassessment, the said certificate cannot be relied upon, but the trial court accepted the same without verification.
• She further contended that the trial court awarded Rs 1.13 lakh towards medical expenses, which was “not proved”.

• On the contrary, the victim argued that the court should consider his monthly income of Rs 20,000 instead of Rs 3,000 and enhance the compensation accordingly.
• He further contended that his disability should be treated as 100%, and the multiplier should be 18 instead of 17.

Background

• The victim, Soumen Mondal, was hit by a vehicle in September 2011, which was allegedly driving at a terrific high speed, in a manner that endangered human life and the safety of others.
• The victim sustained severe injury on right leg along with communised compound fracture, which caused his permanent disability.
• Rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver was allegedly the sole cause of the accident, which was avoidable if the driver had taken proper care and reasonable attention at that time.
• Mondal prayed that he was the sole bread-earner of the family, and had all the qualities to prosper in his life in the near future.
• It was further pointed out that the accident made him permanent disabled man.
• The driver of the said vehicle did not contest the proceedings, and the insurance company defended the case.
• The trial court awarded Rs 7.49 lakh as compensation, payable by the insurance company.