No Medical Certificate, No Disability: Sikkim HC Rejects 50% Disability Finding Based On Fractured Vertebrae

50 percent disability medical certificate motor accident

Sikkim High Court: In an appeal filed under Section 173, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a Single Judge Bench of Meenakshi Madan Rai, J., set aside the order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), Gangtok, where the compensation of Rs 29,12,887 with interest at 6 per cent per annum was awarded to the respondent citing 50 per cent permanent disability. The Court held that fractured ribs, hip dislocation and vertebral fracture cannot lead to 50 per cent disability, in the absence of any medical or disability certificate.

Background

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gangtok, Sikkim granted a total compensation of Rs 29,12,887 with interest @ 6 per cent per annum, in a case, where the respondent sustained injuries such as fracture of 5th rib, dislocation of hip joint and fracture of vertebrae. MACT, while granting compensation to the respondent, concluded that although the rib fracture and dislocation could be treated successfully but the vertebrae fracture could render the respondent permanently disabled. The disability was fixed at 50 per cent by the MACT.

The appellant, New India Insurance Company Ltd. assailed the judgment and the quantum of compensation granted, on grounds that no disability certificate was furnished by the respondents to enable MACT to arrive at the finding of 50 per cent disability. In the absence of disability certificate or other proof to establish that on account of the disability, the respondent lost his ability to earn, the compensation cannot include loss of income.

It was stated by the witness of the respondent that due to injuries, the respondent was unable to stand in “supine manner” and the accident crippled him making him unable to work and stand so the compensation granted needs no interference.

Issue

Whether the conclusion arrived at by the MACT of 50 per cent disability of respondent is correct and if not, what consequences would follow?

Analysis

The Court examined the discharge summary to evaluate the injuries suffered by the respondent and stated that the discharge summary does not indicate disability rendered on account of injuries rather it states “recovery was uneventful”, meaning the recovery followed the normal course. It was observed by the Court that no disability was identified from the discharge summary and the respondent did not furnish disability certificate.

On the deposition by the witness that his “brother is unable to stand in a supine manner and the accident led him to be crippled …..”, the Court noted that meaning of the word “Supine” as per the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, South Asia Edition, Twelfth Edition 2011, i.e. “lying face upwards. â–ª with the palm of the hand upwards. …..” and observed that in such case, “obviously he would not be able to „stand’ in a “supine manner” as imagined by the witness.” Hence, the witness testimony was found by the Court to be ludicrous and self-defeating. The Court opined that fractured rib and hip dislocation cannot lead to 50 per cent disability. Regarding the vertebral fracture, the consequences had neither been detailed by the witness nor the medical certificate or expert, in the absence of which, the finding of 50 per cent disability does not stand.

The Court held that the MACT made an error in reaching the finding of 50 per cent disability in the absence of disability or medical certificate and in computing the compensation. The respondent was found to be entitled only to the actual medical expenses incurred, which were found to be Rs 1,14,147, not Rs 2,67,887 as claimed.

Decision

Therefore, the judgment of the MACT was set aside on the grounds of being erroneous. The Court ordered the amount of Rs 1,14,147 to be paid to the respondent by the appellant, within one month, with interest @ 9 per cent, from filing date till full realisation or @ 12 per cent in case of failure to comply.

[New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Gyandup Tshering Lepcha, 2026 SCC OnLine Sikk 28, decided on 16-4-2026]

*Judgment authored by: Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai


Advocates who appeared in this case:

For Appellants: Dipayan Roy

For Respondents: Rahul Rathi, Rupal Agarwal, Sushant Sibba, Nirmal Thapa

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.