Bengaluru (Aryavarth): The case stemmed from an accident that occurred on November 24, 2013, involving a Tempo bearing registration number UP 79T 1948. Sarnam Singh, the appellant, sustained severe injuries in the accident, leading to his hospitalization for approximately one month and ten days. As a result of the injuries, he suffered an 85% disability in his right lower limb, which eventually required amputation. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. liable and awarded compensation amounting to ₹34,29,800/- as the vehicle was insured.
In its assessment, the Tribunal considered various factors, including pain and suffering, medical expenses, loss of amenities, and loss of earning capacity. Prior to the accident, Sarnam Singh was employed as a gunman with M/s Bharat Hotels Ltd. Unfortunately, due to his inability to perform his duties after the accident, his services were terminated. The Tribunal determined that Sarnam Singh had suffered a 100% loss of earning capacity and awarded compensation accordingly.
Displeased with the Tribunal’s decision, Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. appealed to the Delhi High Court, seeking a reduction in the compensation amount. While the High Court affirmed the Tribunal’s findings on other aspects, it disagreed with the assessment of the loss of earning capacity. The court lowered the loss of earning capacity to 80%, resulting in a reduction of the compensation amount.
Challenging the High Court’s decision, Sarnam Singh argued before the Supreme Court that the court had erred in reducing the loss of earning capacity to 80% despite his right lower limb amputation, which rendered him incapable of performing his duties as a gunman. He relied on previous court judgments to support his contention that his loss of earning capacity should be assessed at 100%.
Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., in response, contended that the Tribunal had made errors in calculating the compensation and that the High Court’s decision was appropriate. The insurance company argued that Sarnam Singh had not filed an appeal seeking an enhancement of compensation, suggesting that he had accepted the Tribunal’s decision on other aspects.
After hearing the arguments, the Supreme Court focused on the crucial issue of functional disability and the proper assessment of compensation for permanent disabilities. The court acknowledged the certification from Madan Mohan Malviya Hospital, issued by a board of doctors, which confirmed Sarnam Singh’s permanent physical disability at 85%, with no likelihood of improvement. The certification also noted that no further reassessment was recommended. Notably, a photograph in the disability certificate depicted Sarnam Singh with his right leg amputated above the knee.
Considering the nature of Sarnam Singh’s work as a gunman and his age at the time of the accident, the Supreme Court held that his loss of earning capacity should be assessed at 100%. The court emphasized that any physical disability resulting from an accident must be evaluated in light of the individual’s occupation. In Sarnam Singh’s case, the loss of his right leg severely impacted his ability to perform his duties as a gunman. Consequently, the court held that the Tribunal’s initial assessment of the loss of earning capacity at 100% was correct, while finding fault with the High Court’s decision to reduce it to 80%.
Additionally the Supreme Court noted an error in the High Court’s calculation of the compensation amount. The High Court had reduced the compensation to ₹28,43,000/- (rounded off) from the original award of ₹34,29,800/-. However, the Supreme Court clarified that the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal was ₹34,29,800/-. Hence, the High Court’s reduction of ₹4,92,205/- was incorrect.
With this judgment, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the importance of considering the nature of work and the impact of permanent disability when assessing compensation for accident victims. The court’s decision ensures that individuals who have suffered severe disabilities due to accidents receive fair and just compensation that adequately reflects their loss of earning capacity and the challenges they face in their daily lives.
The ruling also clarifies the need for a comprehensive evaluation of the functional disability caused by accidents. It highlights the importance of recognizing that the same disability can have varying effects on individuals depending on their occupation and the nature of their work. In Sarnam Singh’s case, his amputated right lower limb significantly limited his ability to continue working as a gunman.
The Supreme Court’s judgment serves as a precedent for future cases involving permanent disabilities and the assessment of compensation. It underscores the court’s commitment to ensuring that accident victims receive appropriate compensation to help them cope with the financial and emotional burdens resulting from their injuries.
The decision is expected to have a positive impact on the rights of accident victims across the country. By emphasizing the importance of accurately assessing the loss of earning capacity and considering the specific circumstances of each case, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed its role in safeguarding the interests of those who have suffered significant disabilities due to accidents.
As the Supreme Court upholds Sarnam Singh’s compensation for his permanent disability, this judgment marks a significant step towards justice and reinforces the principle of fair compensation for accident victims. It stands as a testament to the court’s commitment to protecting the rights of individuals and ensuring that they are appropriately compensated for the losses they have endured.
