The Supreme Court recently enhanced the compensation for a diamond cutter, who lost the vision of one eye, due to a motor vehicle accident.

The Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manmohan was deciding a petition preferred by the claimant-appellant, a diamond cutter by profession. Due to the alleged rashness and negligence of the auto rikshaw driver, he suffered a complete loss of vision in one eye.

The compensation awarded by the tribunal was after taking the percentage of disability at 49%. However, the High Court found such a percentage to be unjustified since eyesight is directly related to his vocation as a diamond cutter. Hence, the same was recomputed at 65%. Pertinently, the amount under the head of pain and suffering was increased by the High Court from 40,000 to 50,000. Aggrieved by this, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

At the very outset, the Court highlighted that diamond cutting is a task of immense skill which involves a great degree of precision and exactitude. Thus, the Court found this 65 % to be insufficient and held that disability of the claimant-appellant be taken as 100%.

“The main process of cleaving and sawing clearly can be completed only when a person is able to see clearly, especially given the size of these precious stones. Seeing only with one eye, unquestionably makes it greatly difficult to effectively carry out these processes. 65% as functional disability, in our view, is yet again insufficient.''

“Given the nature of the profession and the indispensability of the ability to see in carrying out the job required, we are of view that the facts and circumstances of the case warrant that disability of the claimant-appellant be taken as 100%.''

The Supreme Court said that 'pain and suffering' does not only include physical pain. It also includes suffering on account of what has been lost, such as the desire for economic betterment, and social betterment, as a result of such accident. It may be noted that pain and suffering are among the heads under which compensation is awarded.

Reliance was placed in the recent decision in Muralidhar v. R. Subbulakshmi.

“Pain and suffering is not only on account of physical pain but also suffering on account of what has been lost as a result of the accident – desire of economic betterment, social betterment, etc. Once a person is unable to partake in his profession of choice, for no fault of his all these desires are unceremoniously ground to a halt.”

On these counts, the Court concluded that Rs.50,000/ for a 39-year-old is a case of gross undervaluing the suffering of such a person. Thus, while allowing the appeal, the Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.1,50,000/-.

Case Name: JAYANANDAN v. VARKEY & ORS., Arising out of SLP (C) No.22423 of 2024

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 44

Click Here To Read/Download Order