Disability Assessed For Determining Motor Accident Compensation Should Be Functional Disability: Supreme Court Allows Appeal Of Injured Watchman

The Apex Court was considering an appeal filed against the amount of compensation awarded in a motor accident case.

The Division Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran explained, “Raj Kumar found that the disability assessed for determining compensation should be the functional disability. In the present case the physical disability of the appellant was proved by the evidence of a doctor who examined him and assessed his physical disability. The certificate proved by the doctor clearly indicated 80% disability with respect to his amputated leg and 10% disability insofar as the deformed right hand.”

Advocate Mohsin M. Hakim represented the Appellant, while Advocate Pradeep Gaur represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The appellant, while travelling pillion on a bike, met with an accident when a bus rammed into the bike, killing the driver of the bike and seriously injuring the appellant. The right leg of the appellant was amputated below the knee and the right hand was also deformed from the injuries sustained. The appellant before the Tribunal sought a total compensation of Rs. 35 lakh, asserting a salary of Rs 12,000 per month as a watchman, which employment he was not able to continue after the accident, due to the amputation.

The Tribunal found contributory negligence on the bike driver, which was apportioned at 20% while the bus driver was found to be more negligent at 80%. The Tribunal found that the income of the injured, as per the documents produced indicated as Rs 9,918. Reliance was also placed upon the judgment in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) to find 55% functional disability. The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal came to Rs 16,34,650. The High Court in the appeal granted 40% increase in the income as has been held in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi (2017). Aggrieved by the amount of compensation awarded, the appellants approached the Apex Court.

Arguments

The Counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the appellant was working as a watchman and considering the amputation, his disability would be 100%.

Reasoning

The Apex Court noted that the actual loss of income was calculated for 6 months, with the prospects included. According to the Bench, the same was not correct since a 40% increase was to take in the prospects of the injured, and as on the date of the accident, when the income is proved. It was further observed that the loss of income should be based on the income proved before the Tribunal. “We are conscious of the fact that the Insurance Company is not before us but since just compensation is to be paid, we reduce the same to Rs. 60,000/- for 6 months”, it said.

The Bench found that the certificate provided by the doctor indicated 80% disability concerning his amputated leg and 10% disability due to the deformed right hand. The doctor had deposed that the stump of the right leg was also deformed and there was no possibility of using an artificial limb.

“In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that the disability of the appellant would be 80% only considering the fact that the appellant could still move on crutches.The appellant had been in hospital for one and a half months and due to the amputation, would have definitely suffered bed rest for some time in the context of which the High Court has granted 6 months loss of income though the loss of income has been reduced by us”, it held.

The Bench also increased the amount of compensation under the heads of pain and suffering, along with special diet and attendant charges. Awarding a total compensation of Rs 28,79,112.72, the Bench ordered, “The above amount shall be apportioned in the ratio of 20:80 as against the insurer of the bike and the bus. The awarded amounts shall be paid within a period of two months from today with interest @ 9% per annum as ordered by the Tribunal and whatever amounts have already been paid shall be deducted.”

Cause Title: Kanubhai Gokalbhai Bariya v. Jaydipsinh Gopalsinh Parekhiya & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 641)

Appearance:

Appellant: Advocate Mohsin M. Hakim, AOR Ejaz Maqbool, Advocates Saif Zia,

Respondent: Advocates Pradeep Gaur, Amit Gaur, Sweta Sinha, AOR Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Advocates Atul Nigam, Tanvi Nigam, AOR Priya Puri, Advocates Sachin Dubey, Ritim Mangala, Sharad Kumar Puri

Click here to read/download Judgment