30% Medical Disability May Be Regarded As Functional Disability If Job Involves Movement: Jharkhand High Court In MACT Appeal

The Jharkhand High Court has held that when the claimant is a nurse whose work involves considerable movement, then a 30% medical disability due to knee injury can be regarded as a functional disability of the claimant.

Thus, enhancing the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident ClaimsTribunal, Justice Gautam Choudhary noted,

"The claimant is a nurse whose work involves considerable movement while attending to the patients and is not a stationary job. It has come in evidence that she had sustained fracture of knee which resulted in 30% disablement. In the facts and circumstances of the present case the medical disability of 30% can be regarded as the functional disability of the claimant."

The Court added that simply because the claimant was on a contractual job will not disentitle her to the claim.

"To the contrary, considering the uncertain nature of a contractual job, disability in her lower limb will certainly adversely affect her earning capacity," it observed.

Background

The claimant preferred an appeal for enhancement of the compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act against the vehicle owner for the injury sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident of a truck.

The claimant was an employee of the Health Department with a monthly income of Rs. 6,000/-. While on her way from Ranchi to Jamshedpur, she sustained an injury when her car hit a truck. In the accident, her companion died, and she sustained injuries resulting in permanent disability.

The Tribunal held that the claimant was a paramedical worker, she spent Rs. 28,172/- on her treatment due to sustained injuries. Moreover, a further loss of her monthly salary for three months amounting to Rs. 18,000/- was also allowed.

An appeal was preferred to the decision of the Tribunal on the ground that as a result of the accident, the claimant had suffered a 30% disability; however, no compensation has been awarded under this head.

Findings of the Court

The Court perused the disability certificate to note that the claimant has suffered post-accidental swelling and pain in the right thigh and knee, resulting in a disability of 30% assessed by the Medical Board headed by the civil surgeon. Moreover, she could not join her duty after two months of the accident.

It noted that the law is settled that there is a difference between medical disability and functional disability. Moreover, in any case, medical disability cannot be applied mechanically; it has to be determined as to the percentage of functional disability on account of the injury. It noted that both forms of disability might coincide, but they may vary drastically.

It relied on Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr. (2011) where it was held that,

"where the claimants suffer a permanent disability as a result of injuries, assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings would depend upon effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. "

In the said case, it was also noted that in most cases, the percentage of economic loss, i.e., percentage of loss of earning capacity arising from a permanent disability, will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. It further held,

"Some tribunals wrongly assumed that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanently 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."

Therefore, the Court revised and calculated the compensation, including the monthly income, loss of annual earning, age of the deceased, and future prospect at 40%.

Case Title: Bina Goswami v. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 15

Click Here To Download The Order

Read The Order