Any physical disability resulting from an accident has to be judged with reference to the nature of the work being performed by the person who suffered the disability.

The Appellant has filed the present appeal aggrieved against the order of High Court reducing amount of compensation. The Appellant has raised a limited argument that the order of the High Court reducing the loss of earning capacity to 80% is erroneous as the Appellant had suffered amputation of his right lower limb. He was working as gunman. As a result of the accident on account of his inability to discharge duty as gunman, his services were terminated w.e.f. 31st May, 2015. Hence, in the case of the Appellant the functional disability could not be taken as 80%. It should be taken as 100%.

The High Court vide impugned order dated 25.8.2017, while not finding any fault with reference to any of the findings recorded by the Tribunal The amount of compensation was reduced by ₹ 4,92,205/- and finally the amount determined was ₹ 28,43,000/- Held, The same injury suffered by two different persons may affect them in different ways. Loss of leg by a farmer or a rickshaw puller may be end of the road as far as his earning capacity is concerned. Whereas, in case of the persons engaged in some kind of desk work in office, loss of leg may have lesser effect. The impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside and the award passed by the Tribunal is restored

 

 [Sarnam Singh v. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., (2023) 8 SCC 193]

Case Comment:

Reference was made to the judgment of this Court in Mohan Soni vs. Ram Avtar Tomar And Others, any physical disability resulting from an accident has to be judged with reference to the nature of the work being performed by the person who suffered disability.


On applying the same principle to the case in hand, present Court find that the Appellant was working as a gunman with Bharat Hotel Limited. On account of amputation of his right leg above the knee, he was terminated from service w.e.f. 31st May, 2015. It is not a matter of dispute that a person with his right leg amputated cannot perform the duty of a gunman. This is his functional disability. He was 50 years & 5 months old at the time of accident.


The Tribunal was right in assessing the loss of earning capacity of the Appellant at 100% and assessing the compensation accordingly. The High Court was in error in reducing the loss of earning capacity to 80%,

 Subscribe to our updates now and be the first to know about the latest news and developments.

Subscribe here: https://relegal.in/subscribe/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

error: Do not copy the content of this website.

Terms And condition

The rules of the Bar Council of India prohibit law firms from soliciting work or advertising in any manner. By clicking on ‘I AGREE’, the user acknowledges that:

  1. The user wishes to gain more information about Re Legal, its practice areas for his/her own information and use
  2. That the information provided in the website is only for personal use or reference of the visitor and is provided only on his/her specific request.
  3. That the material available for downloading on the website and other information provided on the website would not create any lawyer-client relationship.
  4. That we are not responsible for any consequence of any action taken by the user relying on material/information provided under this website.
  5. That in case the visitor has any legal issues; he or she should seek independent legal advice.

The information provided under this website is for informational purposes only and solely available at your request. It should not be interpreted as soliciting or advertising.