Case Title: Sarnam Singh V. Shriram General Insurance
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 498
Summary
The Supreme Court and the Apex Court have emphasized the importance of evaluating physical disabilities in vehicle accident cases. The division bench, consisting of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, based this on the ruling of the Apex Court in Mohan Soni vs. Ram Avtar Tomar And Others. The appellant, a gunman, lost his job due to an amputation of his right lower limb.
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded him ₹ 34,29,800 in compensation, accounting for his functional handicap at 100%. However, the Delhi High Court challenged this decision, lowering the compensation by ₹ 4,92,205/-, calculating his loss of earning ability at 80%. The appellant’s insurance company argued that the High Court had corrected an error in the computation of compensation based on his disability certificate. The Apex Court overturned the High Court’s ruling, determining that the Tribunal was correct in determining his 100% functional handicap.
About the case
The Supreme Court noted on Tuesday that while determining the amount of compensation to be awarded in vehicle accident cases, the physical handicap resulting from the accident must be evaluated in light of the type of job being performed by the injured parties.
A division bench consisting of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal noted that any physical disability resulting from an accident must be evaluated in light of the type of work that the person with the disability performs. The division bench based this observation on the ruling of the Apex Court in Mohan Soni vs. Ram Avtar Tomar And Others. (2012) 2 SCC 267. Two distinct people may experience different effects from the same injury. For a farmer or rickshaw puller, losing a leg could be the end of their ability to make a living. On the other hand, a person who works a desk job in an office may be less affected by losing a limb. Due to an accident, the appellant in this case had to have his right lower limb amputated after suffering injuries. He was employed by Bharat Hotels as a gunman before the incident. But he lost his job because of the mishap that resulted in the amputation of his right lower limb. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal granted him ₹ 34,29,800 in compensation. After accounting for his functional handicap at 100% in relation to his work as a gunman, ₹ 30,84,800/-was given out of the total compensation. The insurance company then filed an appeal with the Delhi High Court challenging the Tribunal’s decision. Despite the appellant’s right lower limb amputation, the High Court lowered the compensation by ₹ 4,92,205/-, calculating his loss of earning ability at 80%.
According to the petitioner, the functional disability ought to be considered 100%, not 80%. According to the argument, it was incorrect to lower the appellant’s loss of earning ability to 80% even if he had an amputation because of the accident that led to his termination from the military. The Respondent Insurance Company claimed that the High Court had corrected an error in the Tribunal’s computation of compensation based on the appellant’s disability certificate. According to the hospital’s certificate, he had a lifelong physical impairment of 85% and there was little chance that his condition would get better.
The Apex Court overturned the High Court’s ruling and determined that, considering the fact that the man was employed as a gunman and that his injuries from the accident caused him to lose his job, the Tribunal was correct to determine that he had a 100% functional handicap. We discover that the aforementioned appellant was employed by Bharat Hotel Limited as a shooter. He lost his job on May 31, 2015, due to an amputation above the knee on his right leg. There is no question that someone who has had his right leg severed cannot carry out the responsibilities of a gunner. His functional impairment is this. He was 50 years old and five months old when the disaster occurred. Taking into account the above mentioned details, we believe that the Tribunal made the correct assessment of the 80% loss of earning capacity by using the High Court’s ruling, even though this Court’s ruling on the matter was also accessible.
