In Sunil Kumar Khushwaha vs Katragadda Satyanarayana & Anr., the Supreme Court ruled that an injured person’s inability to pursue their previous vocation does not, by itself, justify a 100% functional disability assessment. The Court enhanced the compensation awarded to the appellant—who suffered a leg amputation in a road accident—but held that the correct functional disability in his case was 60%, not 100%.
Background:
The appellant, Sunil Kumar Khushwaha, was severely injured when a truck, driven negligently, struck him and another pedestrian. The injuries led to the amputation of his right leg below the knee. Following initial treatment in a local hospital, the appellant was referred to a specialised hospital and eventually transferred to a higher medical centre in Delhi for the amputation surgery.
Khushwaha, a fruit seller by profession, had been filing income tax returns showing an annual income of ₹1,56,996. He filed a claim petition, and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded ₹7,09,273, primarily covering medical expenses.
Arguments by Parties:
Counsel for the appellant, Mr. Karan Deep Singh, contended that since Khushwaha could no longer pursue his vocation of fruit selling, he should be considered 100% functionally disabled. The respondent-insurance company, represented by Mr. Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, supported the High Court’s order and opposed the enhancement of compensation.
Court’s Analysis:
The bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran examined the appellant’s physical and vocational condition. A medical board had certified 50% permanent physical disability due to the amputation. The Supreme Court referred to Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343, where functional disability for a self-employed person who lost a leg was assessed at 60%.
Rejecting the appellant’s claim of 100% functional disability, the Court observed:
“We are not satisfied that a functional disability of 100% can be assessed only because he cannot carry on the vocation which he was carrying on earlier. It is not as if the appellant was vending fruit on his foot…”
The Court noted that the appellant had a shop in Bazar Samiti and might now have to employ someone to manage it. The Court thus fixed the functional disability at 60%.
Revised Compensation:
The Supreme Court revised the compensation as follows:
| Heads of Claim | Amount (₹) |
| Loss of income (₹1,56,996 × 140% × 18 × 60%) | ₹23,73,780 |
| Medical expenses | ₹5,00,949 |
| Conveyance charges | ₹50,000 |
| Pain and suffering | ₹2,00,000 |
| Loss of income during treatment (1.5 months) | ₹19,624 |
| Special diet & attendant charges (6 months @ ₹15,000/month) | ₹90,000 |
| Total | ₹32,34,353 |
The Court directed that the insurance company must pay the balance amount, after deducting any sums already disbursed, with interest as ordered by the Tribunal from the date of claim filing. The amount is to be paid within two months.
The appeal was allowed in part with modification of the compensation amount. The Court reiterated that loss of previous employment does not, by itself, equate to total functional disability and applied a reasoned standard consistent with earlier judgments.
