The Supreme Court has enhanced the compensation awarded to a woman who was rendered completely blind and suffered severe pelvic injuries in a 2011 road accident from ₹ 2.94 crore to ₹ 3.77 crore, holding that her continued employment could not be treated as proof that her earning capacity remained unaffected.
“The calculation of functional disability depends on assessing the victim’s earning capacity in the open, competitive market, rather than on retention in a specific, highly accommodated role. The Apex Court also dealt with the claim arising from the death of Sushant Prabhakaran, who was riding the motorcycle that the woman, Priyanka Das, was riding pillion on, when the truck hit it. Das claimed that she was his legally wedded wife. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court, however, found that she had failed to establish the marriage through documentary or other sufficient evidence. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with those concurrent findings.
Applying this principle, the Court enhanced the compensation payable to a woman who was rendered completely blind and suffered severe pelvic injuries and a permanent colostomy in a road accident in 2011, raising the amount from ₹ 2.94 crore awarded by the Punjab and Haryana High Court to ₹ 3.77 crore. The woman, who was 35 at the time of the accident, was working as a deputy group manager with IBM Daksh in Gurugram. She had also remained on leave without pay for 19 months after the accident. Prabhakaran, 33, died on the spot.
Evidence before the High Court, specifically the Career Growth Letter dated 06.02.2018 from her employer, confirmed that the Claimant lost out on her normal career growth and promotional progression, including advancement to the positions of General Manager, Director, or Vice President, as a result of the accident.
In a judgment passed on Thursday, a bench of Justices SVN Bhatti and NV Anjaria held that assessment of functional disability in motor accident compensation cases must focus on a victim’s ability to earn in the “open, competitive labour market,” rather than merely on the fact that the person continues to retain a job in a “highly accommodated” workplace. as per the company records, she could perform her duties only with “specially created assistive software, flexible working hours” and other extensive accommodations provided by her employer Although she returned to work after the accident and her annual cost to company subsequently rose from ₹ 16 lakh to ₹ 19 lakh. The Supreme Court noted this and said that her return to work after her accident, thus, could not by itself be taken to mean that her earning capacity had remained unaffected. The record further indicates that she is able to perform her current duties only through specially created software, flexible working hours, and extreme accommodations provided by her employer as an act of corporate compassion,” SC said.
