Supreme Court fixes functional disability at 60% and raises award to over Rs.32 lakh in amputation case

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran heard an appeal by a victim of a road accident challenging the quantum of compensation awarded for amputation and disability, arising out of a claim against the motor insurance company. The Court considered whether the appellant, a fruit seller who suffered amputation following a truck accident, should be assessed as having 100% functional disability in his vocation and whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and confirmed by the High Court required enhancement.

The Court allowed the appeal in part and reassessed the compensation, holding that a 100% functional disability could not be mechanically inferred merely because the injured person could not carry on his previous vocation. The Court accepted the Medical Board certificate which recorded "50% permanent disability" but, applying precedent, fixed the functional disability at 60% and enhanced several heads of claim. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "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. Definitely, the disability would affect his income, and he would probably have to engage an employee in his shop. In Raj Kumar (supra), 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, which was found to be proper. Hence, in the present case, functional disability can be assessed at 60%."

Background The accident occurred when two pedestrians were struck by a truck driven rashly and negligently; one of the pedestrians, the appellant/claimant, suffered grievous injuries culminating in amputation (the judgment recorded amputation of his right leg from the knee). The injured was initially treated locally, then at a specialised hospital, and ultimately in Delhi where amputation was carried out. The appellant was a fruit seller who had filed Income Tax Returns (Exhibit-5) showing annual income of Rs.1,56,996; a Medical Board issued a permanent disability certificate assessing 50% disability.

The Tribunal had awarded Rs.7,09,273, the major component being medical bills of Rs.5,00,949, along with amounts for income during treatment (one and a half months), conveyance and pain and suffering. The High Court relied on Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr. (2011) 1 SCC 343 concerning assessment of functional disability, but the appellant argued for a 100% vocational disability and higher compensation. The insurer sought to sustain the High Court's order.

Applying the precedential approach in Raj Kumar, the Supreme Court concluded that functional loss could not be equated automatically with vocational impossibility and fixed functional disability at 60%. The Court enhanced several heads and computed the revised award as follows: loss of future income Rs.23,73,780 (calculated on Rs.1,56,996 x 140% x 18 x 60%), medical expenses Rs.5,00,949, conveyance Rs.50,000, pain and suffering Rs.2,00,000, income during treatment Rs.19,624, and special diet and attendant charges Rs.90,000 (Rs.15,000 x 6), totaling Rs.32,34,353. The Court directed payment of the modified amount after deducting amounts already paid, with interest as fixed by the Tribunal, from the date of filing of the claim petition, to be paid within two months. The Court further directed that "the appellant shall provide the account details to which account the money shall be deposited online by the insurance company" within the stipulated period. The appeal stood allowed with the above modification and pending applications were disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 642 (Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.16748 of 2024) Case Title: Sunil Kumar Khushwaha v. Katragadda Satyanarayana & Anr. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Karan Deep Singh (learned counsel) For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ambhoj Kumar Sinha (learned counsel)