Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

[3.0] Though served, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not appeared before this Court.

[4.0] Learned advocate Mr. Hemal Shah for the appellant has submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding the just compensation. Learned Tribunal has not considered the functional disability and though doctor has opined that claimant sustained 86% disablement, only 37% disability is considered. The appellant at the time of accident was aged 14 years and vehicle ran over his leg due to which the appellant sustained crush injury and sustained permanent partial disability of lower limb. He has further submitted that even under the heads of pain, shock and suffering and special diet, attendant and transportation charges, learned Tribunal NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3567/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026 undefined has not awarded just compensation. He has submitted that the learned Tribunal has straightway relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Master Mallikarjun vs. Divisional Manager, The National Ins. Co. Ltd., reported in (2014) 14 SCC 396 and erred in assessing the physical disability for body as a whole. He has also argued that though the doctor has not examined the appellant, he has opined about the disablement. Hence, he has requested to allow the present appeal.

"8. Disability refers to any restriction or lack of ability to perform an activity in the manner considered normal for a human-being. Permanent disability refers to the residuary incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body, found existing at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation, after achieving the maximum bodily improvement or recovery which is likely to remain for the remainder life of the injured. Temporary disability refers to the incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body on account of the injury, which will cease to exist at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation. Permanent disability can be either partial or total. Partial permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform all the duties and bodily functions that he could perform before the accident, though he is able to perform some of them and is still able to engage in some gainful activity.

In view of above it is the duty of the Court and the Tribunals to ascertain the functional disability of claimant in all injury cases filed under the MV Act for getting compensation.

[8.1] In the cross-examination, Dr. H.M. Hadiya has admitted 37% disablement body as a whole. If we peruse the nature of injury in consonance with Schedule I of the Workmen Compensation Act, in case of amputation of lower limb, the maximum disablement mentioned is 90% in case of amputation of both feet. Herein, there is no any amputation caused to the claimant. Even if for the sake of argument, it is accepted that there is functional disablement and permanent partial disablement then also, nature of injury is deformity in the left ankle joint and there is no any opinion about shortening of leg or any other deformity has been stated by the doctor. The said doctor has not given any treatment to the claimant. In view of above, it appears that the disability certificate is ready to use certificate. However, if we consider that said certificate is used for assessment of permanent partial disablement as it is even though as per Kessler's Reference, 86% x 0.40 = 34.4%, which may be treated as disability body as a whole. The learned Tribunal has assessed 37% disability body as a whole. Therefore, question does not arise to consider 100% functional disability. Hence, no interference is called for insofar as disability assessed at 37% by the learned Tribunal is concerned. Hence, argument canvassed by the learned advocate to consider 100% is not accepted.

[9.1] It is needless to state that even in the case of a minor, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Anr. reported in 2025 INSC 1070, the Tribunal or the High Court, while dealing with a case involving a child who has suffered injuries or has died, is required to assess loss of income on the basis of the minimum wages payable to a skilled worker in the concerned State at the relevant point of time. Therefore, in the present case, as the accident was occurred on 24.06.2004 and the rate of minimum wages for unskilled person of that time is Rs.2200/-, the monthly income of the appellant is required to be reassessed as Rs.2200/-. Considering the nature of injury and age of the victim and has sustained the partial permanent disability and other consequential losses of said injury, claimant is entitled for getting the compensation in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kajal (Supra) wherein, it has been held that the Tribunal shall award the compensation very conservatively keeping in mind the degree of deprivation and the loss caused by such deprivation which can be termed as "just compensation" as insured / injured claimant has to face the consequences throughout his life and that should not be any token damages. Even, in the case of Master Ayush vs. Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited and Anr. reported in (2022) 7 SCC 738, relying on the decision in the case of Kajal (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in paragraph No.7 as under: