Occupation And Nature Of Duties Must Be Considered For Assessing Functional Disability: Karnataka High Court Enhances Compensation

The Karnataka High Court, while enhancing the compensation of a vendor who lost his limb in a motor accident, has held that for assessing the functional disability, the occupation of the Claimant and the nature of duties which he is supposed to attend on a daily basis is required to be considered.

The Court was considering an Appeal seeking enhancement of award granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal as compensation.

The Bench of Justice Dr. Chillakur Sumalatha observed, "....For a vegetable vendor, it will be highly difficult to continue his occupation and earn in the light of loss of one of the lower limbs. For assessing the functional disability, the occupation of the claimant and the nature of duties which he is supposed to attend on daily basis is required to be considered...."

The Appellant was represented by Advocate Gurudev Prasad K.T., while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Nagaraja K.

Facts of the Case

The Appeal was filed on the ground that he sustained injuries in a road traffic accident and the injury sustained to the left leg resulted in below knee amputation, the Appellant filed a Petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of ₹50,00,000/- in total. The Tribunal through the impugned award granted a sum of ₹5,98,235/- rounded to ₹5,98,300/- as compensation. Dissatisfied with the sum thus awarded and projecting that he is entitled to a higher sum the present appeal is filed.

Counsel for the Appellant sustained grievous injuries in a road traffic accident and as a vegetable vendor was earning ₹2000/- per day. However, due to the amputation of left leg he became totally and permanently disabled. It was averred that without considering the occupation and earnings of the Appellant the Tribunal took the notional income as ₹15,000/- per month and awarded a meager sum as compensation. The Counsel further submitted that the Tribunal did not award justifiable sum under any head. He also contended that the Tribunal totally failed in awarding compensation under the head loss of earnings during laid up period. He thereby sought the Court to award the sum that is claimed by the Appellant as compensation.

Reasoning By Court

The Court at the outset admitted that as a vegetable vendor, it will be highly difficult to continue his occupation and earn in the light of loss of one of the lower limbs.

It thus held that to assess the functional disability, the occupation of the Claimant and the nature of duties which he is supposed to attend on daily basis is required to be considered.

"Undoubtedly, a vegetable vendor is required to either proceed to the villages where the vegetables are grown or to a wholesale market if any present in that particular area, fetch the vegetables, thereafter to segregate and then to transport them to the place of sale. Then he/she has to sit or stand day long, subject the vegetables to sale, to measure the vegetables on arrival of customers to collect the amount and thereafter to handover the vegetables to the respective purchasers. At the end of the day he has to again pack all the vegetables leftover and preserve them for the business to be continued in the succeeding day. Therefore, it would be highly difficult for such a person to work with only one lower limb functioning. Therefore, this Court considers desirable to take the functional disability of the appellant in respect of whole body as 40%", the Court observed.

It thus agreed that the Tribunal failed to award any sum as compensation towards loss of income during laid up period.

".....this Court is of the view that the appellant would have taken considerable time to get the wound healed, to get trained to walk with only one lower limb, thereafter to attend his normal pursuits and to proceed with his occupation. Considering these facts this Court is of view that the Appellant would not have attended his normal pursuits and start his occupation at least for a period of 8 months. Thus, loss of earnings during laid up period comes to ₹1,24,000/- (15,500 x 8)...", the Court observed.

The Appeal was accordingly partly allowed.

Cause Title: Sri Muniyappa v. The Managing Director (2025:KHC:35769)

Click here to read/ download Order