Rashid Ali v. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
Case brief
What is this about?
The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal erred in reducing the disability percentage from 80% to 40% without providing adequate reasons. The Court set aside the award regarding permanent disability relief and directed the Tribunal to recalculate compensation based on an 80% functional disability.
What did the court decide?
Compensation for future prospects ordered to be enhanced from 40% to 60%. Claimant to receive compensation based on 80% functional disability.
What the court decided
$~
* IN THEGCOURFDLAW
Date ofcisn: 1 7 . 09 .205
+ MAC.P 327/015&L6
GSOTD NC A ELI R antA pl. e
roug:T h ni,dvcate o. A KSMr
s ver
D L&OH IRAS dtR es po n.
roug:T h Mr. Manish Man, i Ms. Moumita
Mondal and Ms. Asth C a un, ha
Advocate s forR - 1 .
+ MAC.P 86/2015
D LSH I R A antA pl. e
roug:T h Mr. Manish Man, Ms. Moumita i
Mondal and Ms. Asth C a un, ha
Advocates .
s ver
GSUOTD RELIANC
dtR es po n.
roug:T h ni,dvcate o. A KSMr
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS.JUTICARVG
JUDGEMNT
TAR VISGNJU,.:
1. The prsnt A e eals s p k to cha e ng an le wrd a ate d .12 8 0
[hereinafter referred to as “Imp
dng O i Pres icer, MACT, K f m Courts, Delhi. By the Impugned o kd ar
rd, c a Aw tien smp o h umofR.15 s 92/ 8, 7 - h a s b end wralog
Cl.f9%pu maoith ner sw
2. The Impugned Award has bn cha e ngd by both the I le surace n
Company, i.e., MAC.APP. 327/2015
1 of 15
Company’s Appeal”], as well as by [hereinafter referred to as “Clai
two rt Apl.Since, no sepa re covyights have bn e rand t ag ins
the Owner and the Dive, their pr r snc has b e n e n withp esd i by the
de byisu rt C o 425 10. .
3. ly tha B r i ef cs o n0.12the 7m,w rdnghsC lai
yle, washifrom c m ot r the a sid re by atuckbeai rn g o.HR - 5 - 7, 8 2
g bein rvyR d t N.2/D on sp e v ria rshd n lit mar eg , as
a resultof w h ice Cl tnsuai md gt e vonju ri s. Hw e a s il nt
taken to GTB Hospital, New Delhi, and af shifted to Orthh ert nva o
l, SfdrjungHospitHospit a l, a d n he oSir G t ngRm Hospital,wh a r e
y wag se u r ut a nd o c s r hi tle w g smpu a ed t abov e thkn . He
1.2 ichrgeon as d w
4. arnd Counsel for the IL e surace Company submi n ed b t for this e
urt nC o 2 th 8 05. ae onlyiue ofcha s g leni r A e thalis p t ha
p50%. sr P f F o ni the calu
4.1 arnd Counsel for the IL e surace Company submi n ed t ha the t
red was ju in yf plo m thDTC ()
ming acts,hue fjdFPp or kbw
of th e m Cotin p r S u Nationl IsurceCo. Ltdv. PranySethi and
Ors. 1 f40%. rt bnwv eda ul, s ho
5. This Court had briefly heard the parties and had, by its ode r ate d
grc: in whf olsedt pa 2 8 05.
—MAC.APP. 327/2015 & CM APPL. 6325/20
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal committed a legal error by reducing the disability percentage from 80% to 40% without cogent reasoning.
Whether the Tribunal correctly ignored the medical board's certificate of 80% permanent disability.
Whether the compensation calculation should have been based on an 80% functional disability and 6 years of future prospect.
Parties & counsel
- respondent
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Delhi
- petitioner
MAC.P 327/2015 & CM APPL. 6325/2015
Coram
Ms. J. Tarawarnkar
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court