The Supreme Court of India has significantly enhanced the compensation awarded to an Ayurvedic doctor injured in a motor vehicle accident, ruling that the assessment of ‘functional disability’ must consider the specific impact of the injuries on the claimant’s profession and earning capacity, rather than mechanically applying a percentage of permanent physical disability. A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta increased the total compensation from Rs. 22,99,460, as awarded by the High Court, to Rs. 46,44,432.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a motor accident in December 2015, when Dr. Ashok Choubey, then 48 years old, suffered serious injuries after his car was hit by a Tata Sumo driven by Dashrath Kewat. Following the accident, Dr. Choubey underwent numerous surgeries and required continuous medical intervention.
He filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) in Jabalpur, seeking Rs. 31,50,000 in compensation and stating his monthly income was Rs. 50,000.
On February 22, 2020, the MACT awarded him Rs. 17,66,000, assessing his whole-body permanent disability at 5% and his monthly income at Rs. 30,000. Dissatisfied, both Dr. Choubey and the insurance company filed cross-appeals before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur.
The High Court, in its order dated September 8, 2023, increased the functional disability to 10% and calculated his monthly income as Rs. 39,278.75 based on his income tax returns. This resulted in an enhanced compensation of Rs. 22,99,460. Still feeling the award was inadequate, Dr. Choubey appealed to the Supreme Court.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
Before the apex court, the appellant argued that the computation of his functional disability at 10% was “grossly inadequate,” especially when his disability certificate recorded a 55% disability. He further contended that the compensation awarded under the heads of medical expenses and other conventional heads was insufficient given his ongoing treatment.
Court’s Analysis and Distinction Between Permanent and Functional Disability
The Supreme Court bench began its analysis by emphasizing the critical distinction between permanent physical disability and functional disability. The judgment clarified that while permanent disability is a medical estimation, functional disability relates to the extent to which a person’s profession or vocation has been affected.
To underscore this principle, the Court cited its previous judgment in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343, stating:
“What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings…”
Applying this principle to the present case, the Court observed that the appellant is a medical professional whose work is directly impacted by his physical condition. The judgment noted, “…undergoing surgeries would mean that for some days the claimant-appellant would not be able to attend his clinic, which directly impacts the number of patients visiting him/relying upon the medicine prescribed by him…”
Considering that Dr. Choubey continues to undergo treatment nearly ten years after the accident, the Court found the High Court’s assessment of 10% functional disability to be “inadequate” and reassessed it at 30%.
The bench also re-evaluated the medical expenses. It took note of additional bills for surgery (Rs. 3,25,000) and physiotherapy (Rs. 90,000) incurred by the appellant since the Tribunal’s award. Adding these to the initially submitted bills of Rs. 13,13,789, the Court calculated the total medical expenses to be Rs. 17,28,789. However, the Court also added a note of caution on physiotherapy costs, stating, “No rule of absolute certainty can be laid down so as to say that all expenses incurred on physiotherapy, however long it may be, has to be paid. Afterall, the metric for consideration is just and fair compensation. Fairness extends to both sides viz., the receiver and the payer.”
Final Decision and Recalculated Compensation
Based on its analysis, the Supreme Court recalculated the entire compensation. It took the yearly income at Rs. 4,71,345, added 25% for future prospects, and applied a multiplier of 13. With the functional disability pegged at 30%, the loss of future earnings was calculated to be Rs. 22,97,807.
The Court also awarded Rs. 2,00,000 for future medical expenses, Rs. 1,00,000 for special diet and conveyance, and Rs. 2,00,000 for pain, suffering, and loss of amenities, bringing the grand total to Rs. 46,44,432.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and modified the awards of the MACT and the High Court. It directed the enhanced amount to be paid with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition. The payment is to be remitted directly to the appellant’s bank account before September 30, 2025.
