Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Gujarat High Court: In a petition filed by the insurance company, challenging the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal’s (MACT) rejection of an application for production of a disability certificate issued by the District Medical Board or any authorised body; the Single Judge Bench of Hasmukh D. Suthar, J., held that mere production of a Disability Certificate or Discharge Certificate is not the proof of physical or functional disability and that MACT must consider functional disability with reference to the impact of the injury on the claimant overall earning capacity and not merely on his inability to continue the same avocation.
Background
Respondent 1, the original claimant, had filed a motor accident claim (MAC) petition before the MACT to claim compensation for the injuries sustained during a motor vehicle accident.
A disability certificate was issued to the injured-respondent reflecting 90 per cent disability. The insurance company challenged and sought a re-evaluation of his disability, as the certificate was issued by a doctor who had not treated the claimant.
Subsequently, the petitioner-Insurance Company filed an application before MACT, praying to direct the claimant to produce disability certificate issued by the Medical Board or the competent authority. However, MACT rejected the said application.
Aggrieved, the Insurance Company preferred the present petition before the High Court.
Guidelines on Issuance of Disability Certificates
At the outset, the Court conceded that the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (MV Act), is a benevolent legislation, which is often abused by the “unscrupulous elements” through concocted records or medical documents. The Court stated that in many cases, the disability certificate is issued by the doctor without referring to any specific guidelines.
“If, in time prompt Accident Information Report is forwarded to the jurisdictional Tribunal concerned, then it may be treated as a claim petition which may avoid such concoction of documents.”
The Court stated that the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment had issued exhaustive guidelines for the issuance of disability certificate. The same have been taken into consideration by the Supreme Court in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2021) 17 SCC 530, to issue certain directions. The Court stated that the Supreme Court had a similar observation in Union of India v. Talwinder Singh, (2012) 5 SCC 480, and Anoop Maheshwari v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1918. The Supreme Court held that MACT will merely verify whether the disability certificate presented before it has been issued in accordance with the guidelines notified by the Ministry. When a medical/disability certificate is issued as per the guidelines of the Ministry, it does not require further scrutiny and can be accepted without examining the witness concerned. The opinion of a Medical Board has to be given due weight, as it is an expert body.
“It is true that, in many cases the Disability Certificate issued by the Doctor who has not treated the victim and exorbitant disablement is opined without any reference book or any specific guidelines.”
Assessment of Functional Disability by MACT
The Court stated that the Tribunal has a directive role in the decision-making process, and MACT cannot sit as a mute spectator when a “ready to use” disability certificate is produced before it. The Court stated that in case of any doubt regarding the authenticity of the disability certificate, the MACT may seek a second opinion.
The Court stated that there is a difference between the assessment of physical and functional disability. While physical disability is based on a doctor’s opinion, a functional disability is determined by MACT. Hence, the Court held that a disability certificate is not proof of functional disability and that MACT should consider the overall impact on the earning capacity of the injured, rather than his inability to continue his present occupation.
The Court noted that, in the present petition, MACT mechanically accepted the disability percentage without any reasoning, even though doing so may negatively affect the opposite parties’ case. The Court held that if the parties want, they can always rebut a fact, as the legal principle remains that the person who asserts a fact must prove it. Hence, in the instant case, as the disability certificate was disputed by the Insurance Company, the opportunity to rebut the evidence was required to be given to the Insurance Company.
Conclusion
The Court accordingly held that the impugned order was liable to be set aside and held that it was open to the insurance company to make an application before MACT for directing the claimant to be present for scrutiny of his disability. The Court also directed that the claimant was required to remain present before the Medical Board, along with the disability certificate, or get his disability assessed by any other competent authority. The Court further directed that if the claimant failed to appear before the Medical Board, MACT should draw an adverse inference against the claimant and assess the functional disability based on the evidence on record, while adhering to the directions in Bajaj Allianz case.
Hence, the petition was allowed, and the impugned award was set aside.
[Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunil Ishwarbhai Panchal, R/Special Civil Application No. 3605 of 2025, decided on 3-3-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Kirti S. Pathak
For the respondent: N/A