Continuity Of Income No Grounds To Deny Compensation For Permanent Disability Caused In Accident: AP High Court

In the present case, one Ch. Udaya Bhaskar (claimant) suffered 40% partial and permanent disability, a chewing problem and alteration in speech owing to an accident caused by rash and negligent driving of an APSRTC bus. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded him compensation worth Rs.6,89,000/- at 7.5% per annum. Notably, no compensation was provided under the head of permanent disability as employment and income of the claimant remained unaffected despite the disability.

Interpreting the concept of 'functional disability'— which involves difficulties in performing daily chores, Justice A. Hari Haranandha Sarma explained,

“The disability contributing to loss of income is a relative aspect. Disability may not always directly affect income. But, it is not always the same as functional disability. Functional disability refers to a limitation in respect of day to day activities of a person who becomes disabled. Ability to earn is a different aspect from the disability suffered, causing inconvenience for daily routine. A person might have functional disability although same does not affect the income. A functional disability certainly contributes to loss of income in some cases, restricting someone with mobility issues, making him unable to attend all physical requirements of his job leading to a reduced income, availment of leaves, unable to do extra work having effect on promotions in the job. Factors like accommodation at a particular job, type of job and nature of disability play a role.”

Noting that job security and continued employment cannot negate right to compensation for the disability caused, the Single Judge held,

“The observation of the learned MACT that there is no loss of income is with reference to functional disability, but with regard to physical disability beyond office time, the petitioner may have to bear the disability and get on with the life. Disability sometimes will lead to incurring more expenditure for making arrangements for transportation, attendants and special diet etc. beyond office time also. 40% disability how far it contributes for extra expenditure throughout the life beyond office hours, which would not have been there, had there been no accident or injuries. This empathetic concern of Courts prima facie appears to be hypothetical, but the same is practical and real. There cannot be any scientific or mechanical precision for assessing the such loss. The loss of income need not always be reduction in income. Necessity of incurring extra expenditure is also a relevant factor. Extra expenditure will be there, but extra income will not be there and income will be as per the pay and time scale. Extra expenditure will have effect on savings and plannings.”

Facts:

The Court was dealing with subsequent appeals filed by the claimant and the driver of the offending vehicle (Respondent 1) along with APSRTC officials (Respondents 2 and 3).

The claimant challenged the order primarily on the ground that the compensation awarded was insufficient and relevant heads, particularly permanent disability, was not considered by the MACT.

The driver of the offending vehicle and APSRTC officials contested the order on the grounds that the aspect of negligent driving of claimant was ignored and that the compensation should be scaled down. Further, since the employment of the claimant had not suffered due to the disability and as he also received medical reimbursement, they contended that there was no justification behind awarding compensation under the head of permanent disability.

Court's Findings:

The Single Judge observed that in cases involving permanent disability, it is elemental to consider whether the claimant is totally disabled from earning any livelihood; or whether they can still perform their regular activities despite the disability, or whether they are restricted in discharging their previous functions but capable of continuing in a limited capacity.

Against this backdrop, it was noted that the claimant had suffered from a biting problem and his speech was also altered post the accident, along with the 40% partial and permanent disability. While there was no reduction in the cadre of his employment, the Court construed the disability as 'functional disability' which causes limitations beyond the office hours, causing the claimant to bear extra expenditure.

Thus, with respect to the contention that compensation should be scaled down as the employment of the claimant was unaffected, the Court observed that there was no “standard scale” to measure the same. As the resultant disability would still contribute to extra expenditure throughout the life of the claimant, it was held-

“Guesswork and calculation on a national basis are the only options the Courts are left with in such cases. In the present case, considering the continuation of employment and the extent of disability, this Court finds that 1/4th of the disability spoken of by the doctors viz. 10% can be accepted as the basis for assessing the entitlement of claimant for compensation under the head of permanent disability.”

Thus, after making necessary calculations, the Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.13,85,000/-.

Case Details:

Case Number: MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1180/2011

Case Title: CH. UDAYA BHASKAR v. K APPA RAO PALAKONDA and others

Click Here To Read/Download Order