Calcutta High Court Clarifies Disability Certificate Rules for Accident Victims
The Calcutta High Court has made an important distinction regarding disability certificates. Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury clearly stated that certificates used for employment, education, or welfare schemes cannot be treated the same as those required for motor accident compensation claims.
Court Rejects Insurance Company's Appeal
Justice Chowdhury was hearing an appeal filed by an insurance company challenging a compensation award of Rs 7.49 lakh. The victim, Soumen Mondal, had also filed a cross-objection seeking enhanced compensation. After careful consideration, the court found the original compensation fair and reasonable, requiring no changes.
The court emphasized that accident victims should not be forced to wait for disability certificate validity periods to expire. They should not need to obtain renewed certificates during ongoing legal proceedings either.
Key Arguments and Findings
The insurance company's lawyer, advocate Sayanti Santra, presented several arguments. She claimed the case was filed too late - three years after the accident occurred. She also noted the FIR was registered 17 days after the incident. Santra argued that the disability certificate had expired in November 2019 and should have been reassessed.
However, the court found these arguments unconvincing. The judges noted that Mondal had been hospitalized for 11 days following the accident, explaining any delay in filing. They also pointed out that the disability certificate was issued in November 2014 while the claim case was already pending.
On the other side, Mondal argued for higher compensation. He claimed his monthly income should be considered as Rs 20,000 instead of Rs 3,000. He also requested his disability be treated as 100% with a multiplier of 18 rather than 17.
Background of the Case
Soumen Mondal suffered a serious accident in September 2011. A vehicle traveling at high speed hit him, causing severe injuries to his right leg. He sustained a communised compound fracture that resulted in permanent disability.
Mondal described himself as the sole breadwinner for his family. He emphasized that the accident had permanently disabled him, affecting his future prospects. The driver of the vehicle did not contest the proceedings, leaving the insurance company to defend the case.
Court's Final Decision
After examining all aspects - including compensation amount, victim's age, and multiplier applied - the court upheld the trial court's December 2024 order. The judges described the compensation as just and reasonable.
The court ruled that Mondal could withdraw the awarded amount along with interest. The interest rate was set at 4% per annum from the date of filing the claim case until deposit, including any accrued interest.
This ruling clarifies important procedural aspects for accident victims seeking compensation. It ensures they won't face unnecessary hurdles regarding disability certificate renewals during legal processes.
