Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently emphasised that ascertainment of permanent disability and its specific effect on actual earning capacity of injured victim in road accident cases has to be considered while computing compensation for the claimant.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Manmohan enhanced compensation for appellant Jaynandan, a 39-year diamond cutter, who lost one eye completely after he sustained injuries upon his motorcycle collided with an autorickshaw being driven in a rash and negligent manner on February 15, 2005.

"Given the nature of his profession and the indispensability of the ability to see in carrying out the job required, we are of view that the facts and circumstances of the case warrant that disability of the claimant-appellant be taken as 100%," the bench held.

The court pointed out that diamond cutting, as even the uninitiated can understand, is a task of immense skill that involves a great degree of precision and exactitude.

"The main process of cleaving and sawing clearly can be completed only when a person is able to see clearly, especially given the size of these precious stones. Seeing only with one eye, unquestionably makes it greatly difficult to effectively carry out these processes. 65% as functional disability, in our view, is yet again insufficient," the bench opined.

The appellant filed the claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, seeking compensation to the tune of Rs 14,58,000. On July 21, 2017, taking the percentage of disability at 49%, the tribunal awarded him a total compensation of Rs 8,70,000 with 8% interest.

He filed an appeal before the Kerala High Court which by its June 19, 2024 judgment stated the computation of the disability at 49% was unjustified since eyesight was directly relatable to being able to continue in his vocation of a diamond cutter. Holding the disability at 65%, it enhanced the total compensation to Rs 10,57,500 lakh.

In his appeal before the apex court, the appellant raised the grievances on the percentage of disability; and compensation under the head ‘pain and suffering'.

After examining the matter, the bench said, "We are inclined to agree with these points. The ascertainment of permanent disability, more specifically its effect on actual earning capacity has been discussed in Rajkumar Vs Ajay Kumar (2011)," the bench said.

After holding his disability as 100%, the bench examined the aspect of pain and suffering undergone by him.

The bench referred to its recent decision in the civil appeal titled K.S. Muralidhar v. R. Subbulakshmi, where it elaborated on the concept of pain and suffering.

"Pain and suffering is not only on account of physical pain but also suffering on account of what has been lost as a result of the accident – desire of economic betterment, social betterment, etc. Once a person is unable to partake in his profession of choice, for no fault of his all these desires are unceremoniously ground to a halt," the bench said.

Court found that awarding ₹50,000 to a 39-year-old significantly underestimated the extent of their suffering. It revised the compensation under this category to ₹1,50,000, recognizing the gravity of the impact.

It finally directed for payment of Rs 15,98,000 as total compensation with an 8% rate of interest.

Case Title: Jayanandan Vs Varkey & Ors