The Supreme Court has asserted that the assessment of functional disability must be grounded in a realistic appraisal of the impact of the injury on the claimant’s capacity to earn, and cannot be a mechanical application of the percentage of physical disability. The inquiry must extend to evaluating whether the claimant, in light of their educational background, skill set, and the specific nature of their employment, is capable of meaningfully pursuing their avocation post-injury.
Where injuries result in significant neurological and cognitive impairments (such as severe memory loss, frontal lobe dysfunction, and reduced IQ) that strike at the core competencies indispensable for the claimant’s professional role, the Apex Court held that the functional disability for the purpose of computing loss of earning capacity can be assessed at 100%, even if the certified physical disability is a lower percentage.
Further, the Court clarified that when an appellate court interferes with findings of fact recorded by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), especially on issues like disability assessment, it is incumbent upon it to undertake a thorough reappreciation of evidence and provide cogent, clear, and convincing reasons for its departure from the MACT’s conclusions.
A Two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Sandeep Mehta found the High Court’s reduction of the functional disability from 63% to 30% to be unjustified, as it was done without assigning cogent reasons or analysing the medical evidence, particularly the neuropsychological report.
The Bench noted that the appellant’s role as a Manager was inherently dependent on cognitive functions like memory, analytical ability, and decision-making. The neuropsychological report indicated severe impairment of verbal and visual memory, frontal lobe dysfunction, and an IQ of 65, placing him in the category of ‘Mild Intellectual Disability’.
Lastly, the Bench observed that these neurological impairments, combined with physical disabilities like partial blindness and orthopedic limitations, demonstrated a profound erosion of the faculties essential for his employment, rendering him incapable of resuming his previous avocation.
Briefly, on the night of May 5, 2016, the appellant-claimant, while riding his motorcycle, was hit head-on by another motorcycle driven in a rash and negligent manner by R. Chinnadurai. As a result of the collision, the appellant sustained grievous injuries, including a fracture of the left leg, facial injuries, and a severe head injury.
At the time of the accident, the appellant was 30 years old and employed as a Manager at Flyjac Logistics Pvt Ltd., earning a monthly income of Rs. 25,000. He filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), which awarded him a total compensation of Rs. 65.53 Lakhs with interest, assessing his permanent disability at 63%.
On appeal, the High Court of Judicature at Madras reduced the compensation to Rs. 35.61 Lakhs, adjudging the functional disability at only 30%. Hence, the appellant then approached the Supreme Court seeking enhancement of the compensation.
Appearances:
Senior Advocate Haripriya Padmanaban, AOR Raghunatha Sethupathy B, along with Advocates S. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Manoj Kumar A., Trisha Chandran, and Vinayaga Vignesh I, for the Appellant
AOR Prerna Mehta, for the Respondent
