A road accident that cost a Tamil Nadu mason his right leg has also led to a significant clarification from the Supreme Court on how disability compensation should be assessed in motor accident cases.
The Court has ruled that for a mason whose livelihood depends entirely on physical labour, the loss of a leg above the knee amounts to 100% functional disability, regardless of a lower percentage of medical disability recorded in official certificates.
A Bench comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.V. Anjaria increased the compensation awarded to the injured claimant from ₹29.01 lakh to ₹40.29 lakh, finding that the authorities below had underestimated the impact of the injury on his ability to earn.
The case arose from a 2017 accident on the Namakkal-Salem highway, where a lorry struck the claimant’s bicycle from behind. The injuries ultimately resulted in the amputation of his right leg above the knee. The claimant, a mason by profession, maintained that the injury had effectively ended his ability to continue working in the trade that sustained him.
Medical authorities assessed his permanent physical disability at 70%. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court relied on that figure while calculating the loss of earning capacity.
The Supreme Court, however, drew a clear distinction between physical disability and functional disability. Referring to established precedent, the Bench stressed that compensation cannot be worked out by mechanically applying the percentage of medical disability. What matters is the real-world effect of the injury on a person’s profession and earning potential.
The judges observed that masonry is a physically intensive occupation requiring mobility, balance and prolonged standing. In such circumstances, the amputation had not merely reduced the claimant’s physical abilities—it had effectively deprived him of the capacity to carry on his vocation.
Accordingly, the Court held that the claimant’s functional disability should be assessed at 100%.
Reworking the compensation, the Bench accepted a monthly income of ₹12,000, added 40% towards future prospects and applied a multiplier of 17. It also enhanced the amount awarded for future medical needs from ₹1 lakh to ₹2 lakh, taking note of the continuing costs associated with artificial limbs, replacements and maintenance over the claimant’s lifetime.
The final compensation was recalculated at ₹40,29,730, carrying interest at 7.5% per annum. The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced amount within six weeks.
