The Supreme Court granted held that functional disability of 100% can’t be assessed only because the injured cannot carry on the vocation which he was carrying on earlier.

The appellant approached the Apex Court challenging the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

The Division Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran said, “We are not satisfied that a functional disability of 100% can be assessed only because he cannot carry on the vocation which he was carrying on earlier. It is not as if the appellant was vending fruit on his foot, especially when it is seen that he was filing an Income Tax Return. It is also evident from the deposition of CW-2 that the injured was having a shop in Bazar Samiti.”

Advocate Sanjeev Sahay represented the Appellant while AOR Ambhoj Kumar Sinha represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

Two pedestrians were struck by a truck which was driven rashly and negligently. One of them, the appellant/claimant, suffered grievous injuries leading to amputation of his right leg from the knee. The injured was first taken to a local hospital, then shifted to a specialized hospital for better treatment, where the amputation was carried out. The injured was a fruit seller who had already been filing Income Tax Returns. His income was indicated to be Rs 1,56,996. The Tribunal adopted the same, however, no amounts were granted for the loss of income due to the permanent disability suffered. The Tribunal granted an amount of Rs 7,09,273, the major portion of which was towards medical bills coming to Rs 5,00,949.

Arguments

It was the appellant’s case that there was a 100% functional disability since the appellant was a fruit seller and he could no longer carry out such sales.

Reasoning

The Bench made it clear that the functional disability of 100% couldn’t be assessed. Reference was also made to the judgment in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Anr. (2011) where a self-employed person engaged in a business, who had to amputate his left leg, pursuant to a motor vehicle accident, was assessed with a functional disability of 60% by the Tribunal. “Hence, in the present case, functional disability can be assessed at 60%”, the Bench said.

The Bench also considered the fact that because the injured had to move from the local hospital to the specialized hospital and then to the higher medical center at Delhi, the conveyance charges could be fixed at Rs 50,000. For pain and suffering, considering amputation of his left leg, Rs 2 lakhs was awarded.

As per the Bench, the High Court had found a reasonable period of bed rest of 6 months. For special diet and attendant charges, an amount of Rs 15,000 per month was awarded. Thus, the Bench granted a total amount of Rs 32,34,353 as compensation.

Allowing the appeal, the Bench ordered the compensation to be paid within 2 months.

Cause Title: Sunil Kumar Khushwaha v. Katragadda Satyanarayana & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 642)

Appearance:

Appellant: Advocate Sanjeev Sahay, AOR Shagufa Salim, Karan Deep Singh, Archit Rajput, Shagun Saproo

Respondent: AOR Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate Neeti Bhardwaj

Click here to read/download Judgment







Justice Sudhanshu DhuliaChief Justice K Vinod Chandran

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.