LawChakra

Supreme Court: ‘Disability for Motor Accident Compensation Must Be Functional, Not Merely Medical’: Rs 48 Lakh Awarded to Victim

The Supreme Court held that disability in motor accident compensation must be functional, not merely medical, awarding Rs 48 lakh to the victim for loss of earning capacity.

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

Supreme Court: ‘Disability for Motor Accident Compensation Must Be Functional, Not Merely Medical’: Rs 48 Lakh Awarded to Victim

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India has awarded an enhanced compensation of Rs 48,44,790 to a man who suffered the amputation of one leg along with a portion of the pelvic bone in a motor accident. The Court clarified that while granting compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, the assessment of disability must focus on “functional disability”—that is, the impact on earning capacity—rather than relying strictly on the percentage of medical disability.

Background of the Case

The case arose from a tragic accident in April 2007, when a truck, driven rashly and negligently, collided with the motorbike of the claimant, Anoop Maheshwari. The accident resulted in a hemipelvectomy (amputation of one leg and part of the pelvic bone).

The Tribunal initially assessed his disability at 45%, rejecting his claim of 90% supported by a medical board’s certificate. It awarded compensation of Rs 13.23 lakh, including limited medical and attendant expenses.

The High Court later enhanced his compensation to Rs 23.09 lakh, fixing the disability at 50% functional disability and revising his monthly income to Rs 8,000. Dissatisfied, the claimant approached the Supreme Court seeking further enhancement.

Observations by the Supreme Court

A Division Bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice N. V. Anjaria held that:

Breakup of Compensation Awarded:

The Supreme Court enhanced the compensation as follows:

Total Rs 48,44,790 with 6% interest per annum from the date of application.

Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate S.P.Chaly, Advocates Roy Abraham, Reena Roy, Adithya Koshy Roy, Yaduinder Lal, Rajni Ohri Lal, AOR Himinder Lal
Respondent: AOR T. Mahipal, Advocate Rohit Kumar Sinha

Case Title:
Anoop Maheshwari v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
Civil Appeal Nos. 12098-12099 of 2024

Read Judgment:

Click Here to Read More Reports On Municipal Corporation

FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES

Exit mobile version