The Supreme Court on Tuesday criticised former Punjab & Haryana High Court judge Justice Rekha Mittal for drastically reducing the compensation awarded in a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) case..At the outset of the hearing, counsel for the appellant informed the bench that the High Court had drastically reduced the compensation. Justice Surya Kant immediately questioned:"High Court has reduced? Which High Court?"When informed that it was the Punjab & Haryana High Court, and that Justice Mittal had passed the ruling, Justice Kant openly criticised her approach, remarking:"Haan yahi hona tha wahan. (This was bound to happen). She was known for it. Every case.".Justice Kant's parent High Court is the Punjab & Haryana High Court..The case concerned a truck driver who suffered an amputation after colliding with an unattended truck parked in the middle of the road at 4 AM without parking lights. The MACT had awarded compensation of ₹29.58 lakh, but the Punjab & Haryana High Court had slashed the compensation to ₹3.97 lakh - a move that drew strong disapproval from the Supreme Court..The bench found serious errors in the High Court's assessment and restored the tribunal's award with slight modifications. The Court noted that the appellant, a truck driver and owner, was 57 years old at the time of the accident in 2012. Due to the amputation of his right leg, he suffered 100% functional disability, making him completely unfit to drive.While the MACT had taken this into account while awarding ₹29.58 lakh, the High Court reduced his functional disability to 80% without assigning valid reasons and drastically cut the compensation. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had failed to appreciate the evidence on record and had not provided cogent reasons for the substantive reduction..The Court also disagreed with the High Court and the tribunal as regards attribution of 40% contributory negligence to the appellant, stating that the parked truck without parking lights in the middle of the road was the primary cause of the accident. It thus revised the contributory negligence ratio to 30/70 in favour of the appellant, holding the owner of the offending vehicle more responsible.It ultimately ruled that the insurance company would have the right to recover the amount from the owner of the offending vehicle. The tribunal’s award of ₹29.58 lakh was largely restored, and the High Court's order was set aside.
