Summary
In a motor accident injury claim, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's unreasoned reduction of functional disability from 63% to 30% and, instead of remanding a decade-old case, assessed functional disability at 100% because the claimant's head injury left cognitive and other impairments that disabled him from working as a manager; compensation was enhanced to Rs.97,73,011 with 7.5% interest.
Issues
- Whether the High Court was justified in reducing the claimant's functional disability from the 63% certified by the Medical Board and accepted by the MACT to 30%, and in reducing the awards for loss of amenities and pain and suffering, without discussing the medical evidence.
- What functional disability should be adopted to compute loss of future earning capacity of a manager who suffered head injury with cognitive impairment, partial blindness and knee impairment.
Held
- An appellate court that reduces a Tribunal's finding of functional disability without independent analysis of the Medical Board certificate and the neuropsychological report, without contrary evidence from the insurer and without cogent reasons, acts on presumptions and assumptions; its reduction of the awards for loss of amenities and pain and suffering without reasons likewise cannot stand. (¶¶ 21, 22)
- Although such a defect would ordinarily warrant remand, the Court decided functional disability itself on the uncontroverted record, since the accident occurred in 2016 and remand would prolong the claimant's litigation. (¶¶ 23, 24, 25)
- Following Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, the percentage of physical disability is not mechanically equated with loss of earning capacity; the assessment must realistically appraise the impact of the injuries on the claimant's capacity to earn, considering his avocation, education, skills and nature of employment. (¶¶ 27, 28)
- Severe memory impairment, frontal lobe dysfunction, an IQ of 65, partial blindness and knee instability struck at the core faculties needed for managerial work, so the claimant's functional disability was reckoned at 100% for computing loss of earning capacity (Rs.40,000 x 12 x 100% x 17), and the MACT's awards for loss of amenities and pain and suffering were restored. (¶¶ 26, 29, 30, 31)
- When interfering with a Tribunal's findings on disability and loss of earning capacity, an appellate court must reappreciate the evidence and give cogent reasons, an obligation heightened under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which is beneficial welfare legislation. (¶ 35)
Result
Appeal allowed; compensation enhanced to Rs.97,73,011 with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition, adjusting amounts paid; insurer to deposit the balance with interest before the MACT, Coimbatore within six weeks, with liberty to recover from the driver-cum-owner; High Court judgment and MACT award modified; no costs.