Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Injury claim — Amputation above knee — Functional disability.
(A) Permanent disability — Physical disability and functional disability — Distinction.
For determining compensation in injury cases, the relevant consideration is not merely the percentage of physical disability certified by the medical expert, but the effect of such disability upon the earning capacity of the injured. Physical disability and functional disability are distinct concepts. (Paras 20 to 22)
Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343, followed.
(B) Functional disability — Mason suffering above-knee amputation — 100% loss of earning capacity.
Where the claimant was employed as a mason and suffered amputation of the right leg above the knee, rendering him incapable of performing manual and physical labour constituting his sole avocation, the functional disability was liable to be assessed at 100%, notwithstanding physical disability being certified at 70%. (Paras 23 to 26)
(C) Loss of earning capacity.
The percentage of physical disability cannot mechanically be adopted as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. The Tribunal must ascertain the effect of the injury upon the actual vocation of the injured. (Paras 21 and 22)
(D) Manual labourer — Amputation.
A mason necessarily depends upon continuous use and support of both lower limbs. Amputation of a leg above the knee effectively destroys his capacity to continue such avocation and may justify assessment of total functional disability. (Paras 23 to 25)
Motor Vehicles Act — Compensation.
(E) Future prospects — Injured claimant.
Where the injured claimant was aged about 30 years and self-employed, addition of 40% towards future prospects was rightly granted. (Paras 9 and 26)
(F) Assessment of income.
In the absence of documentary proof supporting the claimed income of Rs.20,000/- per month, the High Court was justified in assessing the claimant's monthly income at Rs.12,000/-. (Para 18)
(G) Future medical expenses — Artificial limb.
Where the claimant suffered above-knee amputation and would require repeated replacement, maintenance and rehabilitation in relation to artificial limbs throughout his lifetime, compensation towards future medical expenses deserved enhancement. (Para 27)
(H) Prosthesis and rehabilitation.
Compensation in amputation cases must adequately account for continuing medical expenses, prosthetic replacement, rehabilitation and long-term assistance necessitated by the permanent disability. (Para 27)
Principles.
(I) Loss of future earnings.
The Tribunal must undertake three distinct inquiries:
- Nature and extent of permanent disability.
- Occupation and avocation of the claimant.
- Actual impact of the disability on earning capacity.
The economic loss may in appropriate cases be greater than the medical percentage of disability. (Paras 21 and 22)
Held
The Courts below erred in mechanically equating 70% physical disability with 70% loss of earning capacity. Since the appellant was a mason whose livelihood depended entirely upon physical labour and he had suffered amputation of his right leg above the knee, the functional disability was liable to be assessed at 100%.
Further, the amount awarded towards future medical expenses for prosthesis required enhancement from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/-.
Accordingly, compensation was enhanced from Rs.29,01,570/- to Rs.40,29,730/- with interest at the rate awarded by the High Court. (Paras 26 to 31)
Ratio Decidendi
In cases of permanent disability, compensation must be based upon functional disability affecting earning capacity and not merely upon the percentage of physical disability certified by medical experts. Where the injury completely disables a person from pursuing his established vocation, the functional disability may be assessed at 100% notwithstanding a lower percentage of physical disability.
Cases Referred
- Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar
Compensation Reassessed
| Heads | Tribunal | High Court | Supreme Court |
|---|---|---|---|
| Monthly Income | Rs. 6,000 | Rs. 12,000 | Rs. 12,000 |
| Functional Disability | 70% | 70% | 100% |
| Loss of Earning Capacity | Rs. 8,56,800 | Rs. 17,13,600 | Rs. 24,48,000 |
| Future Prospects | Nil | Rs. 6,85,440 | Rs. 9,79,200 |
| Pain and Suffering | Rs. 50,000 | Rs. 1,00,000 | Rs. 1,00,000 |
| Transportation | Rs. 5,000 | Rs. 25,000 | Rs. 25,000 |
| Nutrition | Rs. 10,000 | Rs. 10,000 | Rs. 10,000 |
| Clothing and Ornaments | Rs. 5,000 | Rs. 5,000 | Rs. 5,000 |
| Medical Expenses | Rs. 1,57,530 | Rs. 1,57,530 | Rs. 1,57,530 |
| Attendant Charges | Nil | Rs. 30,000 | Rs. 30,000 |
| Loss of Amenities | Nil | Rs. 75,000 | Rs. 75,000 |
| Future Medical Expenses | Nil | Rs. 1,00,000 | Rs. 2,00,000 |
| Total Compensation | Rs.10,84,330 | Rs.29,01,570 | Rs.40,29,730 |
Result
Appeal partly allowed.
The judgment of the High Court was modified.
Compensation enhanced from Rs.29,01,570/- to Rs.40,29,730/- together with interest at the rate awarded by the High Court.
The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the enhanced amount within six weeks. (Paras 30 and 31)
No comments:
Post a Comment