New Delhi, June 24: The Supreme Court has increased the compensation for a mason from Tamil Nadu who lost his right leg in a road accident. The court emphasized that when assessing loss of earning capacity in motor accident claims, courts should consider ‘functional disability’ rather than just the percentage of physical disability.
A bench comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.V. Anjaria raised the compensation awarded to petitioner M. Paramesh from ₹29.01 lakhs, as determined by the Madras High Court, to ₹40.29 lakhs. The court acknowledged that the amputation of his right leg above the knee rendered him completely unable to continue his work as a mason.
While partially approving the appeal, the Supreme Court noted that although the claimant’s permanent physical disability was assessed at 70%, his functional disability for earning a livelihood was 100%.
The bench, led by Justice Mishra, stated that the amputation not only caused physical disability but also made the claimant incapable of performing the physically demanding tasks that were his sole means of livelihood.
The court further remarked that limiting the loss of earning capacity to 70% based solely on physical disability was not appropriate under these circumstances.
This case stems from an accident on April 18, 2017, on the Namakkal-Salem National Highway, where a truck collided with the claimant’s bicycle. He sustained serious injuries to his head, jaw, eye, and right leg, ultimately leading to the amputation of his leg above the knee.
At the time of the accident, the claimant, then around 30 years old, sought ₹25 lakhs in compensation from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), arguing that the permanent disability from the accident prevented him from continuing his work.
In 2019, the MACT calculated his monthly income at ₹6,000 and determined compensation of ₹10.84 lakhs based on a 70% disability assessment. Following an appeal, the Madras High Court increased the monthly income to ₹12,000 and added 40% for future prospects, raising the total compensation to ₹23.86 lakhs.
However, the Supreme Court found flaws in the High Court’s calculations, stating that future prospects should have been assessed based on the MACT’s evaluation rather than the increased income determined by the High Court.
The Supreme Court also noted that certain amounts allocated by the MACT for nutrition, clothing, jewelry, and medical expenses were mistakenly omitted from the final calculation by the Madras High Court.
Citing a previous ruling, the bench led by Justice Mishra reiterated that compensation cannot be mechanically determined by equating physical disability to loss of earning capacity.
The ruling emphasized that in cases of permanent disability, compensation should not be calculated by mechanically applying the percentage of physical disability to the percentage of economic loss.
Recognizing that the work of a mason is physically demanding and requires the use of both legs, the Supreme Court concluded that the claimant had indeed lost the ability to continue his work.
Leave a Comment