Devender Mehto v. Sh Santosh Gupta & Ors.

1. This appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi (‘MACT/Tribunal’) by impugned award dated 12th September 2023 in MACP No. 456/2016 at Rs. 14,97,740/- along with 7.5% interest per annum.

2. The accident in question occurred on 28th July 2015 at about 6 pm, when appellant/claimant, aged 37 years old, was travelling from Pusa Gate to Charak Palika Hospital, Moti Bagh, New Delhi on an Eicher Tempo loaded with refrigerators. When they reached near Charak Palika Hospital, all of a sudden, the tempo, being driven rashly and negligently, hit a tree branch due to which the appellant/claimant was crushed under the loaded refrigerators. As a result of the accident, appellant/claimant suffered permanent spinal and bladder injuries.

3. Mr. S.N. Parashar, counsel for appellant/claimant, seeks enhancement of compensation on three counts.

4. Firstly, functional disability was determined at 50% in context of permanent disability certified at 42% i.e. 20% due to L-2 and L-3 lumber vertebrae and 25% due to involvement of bladder, following an injury to the spinal cord. Considering that, appellant/claimant was working as a labourer and was actively involved in loading and unloading, his vocation was completely affected; secondly, the rate of interest was inadequately considered at 7.5%; and thirdly, compensation awarded towards nonpecuniary compensation is inadequate.

5. Dr. Satish Kumar, Consultant, Orthopaedics and Chairman, Medical Board, Dr. RML Hospital, New Delhi, (‘PW-4’) stated that the patient cannot do labour work i.e. loading and unloading of heavy objects and his bladder function was completely de-arranged leading to dribbling of urine.

6. In these circumstances, Mr. Parashar has relied not only upon the principles enunciated in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343, but also the recent judgment of Supreme Court in M. Paramesh v. VRL, Logistics Ltd & Anr. 2026 INSC 655, where Supreme Court ascertained functional disability in case of a mason at 100%.

7. The Supreme Court in M. Paramesh (supra) was dealing with an appeal for enhancement of compensation, in case of a mason who had suffered amputation of his right leg. Relying upon the decision in Raj Kumar (supra), the Court categorically stated that depending on the nature of vocation carried out by the injured-claimant prior to the accident, functional disability may be assessed at a higher percentage, including 100%. It was noted that the nature of work carried out by a mason involves continuous use and support of both legs and the injury had rendered the mason incapable of carrying out the manual work, which constituted his only source of livelihood. Therefore, the loss of earning capacity cannot be restricted to 70% on the basis of physical disability. Relevant observations of the Court are extracted as under:

8. Mr. J.P.N. Shahi, counsel for respondent no.3/Insurance Company counters the grant of 100% towards functional disability, as pleaded by Mr. Parashar, submitting that there will be no difference between people with some functionality and those with paraplegia. He, therefore, states some consistency has to be there in the parameters which are applied by the Courts in context of what was stated in Raj Kumar (supra) which provided a triple test for calculating functional disability. Relevant finding of the Supreme Court is extracted as under:

9. Considering the testimony of PW-4 and the decision of Supreme Court in M. Paramesh (supra), the Court is of the opinion that functional disability has to be increased, considering that appellant/claimant was doing labour work, therefore, would be completely impeded in continuing his vocation.

10. Further, the impediment faced by appellant/claimant in his bladder functions would also disable him from doing many other jobs which would require continuous presence and attendance. Accordingly, the Court is inclined to proportionately increase functional disability to 75%.

11. As regards the issue of interest, reliance may be placed the decision of Supreme Court in Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2001) 2 SCC 9, wherein, while interpreting the powers of MACT under Section 171 of MV Act to award simple interest on compensation from the date of institution of the claim petition, it was observed that the rate of interest awarded by nationalised banks on fixed deposits ought to serve as the guiding factor while determining the rate of interest payable on compensation amounts. Considering that the long-term fixed deposit rates offered by nationalised banks during 2015-16 i.e. at the time of filing the claim petition were between 7-7.5%, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the rate of interest awarded by the MACT.