Even though claimant does not suffer from 100% physical permanent disability, he suffers from 100% functional disability if he loses capacity to pursue his work as a result of accident

This
Court has held that loss of earning capacity is not a
substitute for percentage of physical disablement.
It is
simply one of the factors taken into account to award
just
and
reasonable
compensation.
Even
though
the
claimant does not suffer from 100% physical permanent
15 2007 (2) SCC 349

disability, he suffers from 100% functional disability if
he loses the capacity to pursue his work as a result of
the accident.
It is worthwhile to extract paragraph no. 8
from the aforesaid judgment which reads as under:
“8. Loss of earning capacity is, therefore, not a
substitute
for
percentage
of
the
physical
disablement. It is one of the factors taken into
account. In the instant case the doctor who
examined the claimant also noted about the
functional disablement. In other words, the
doctor had taken note of the relevant factors
relating to loss of earning capacity. Without
indicating any reason or basis the High Court
held that there was 100% loss of earning
capacity.”
39.
In Palraj v. North East Karnataka Road Transport
Corpn.16, where the appellant was a driver, this Court
held that although the appellant has lost the use of his
legs, the same amounts to total disablement as far as
driving a vehicle is concerned.
40. In Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanath
S. Dhananka17, this Court has observed as under:
“88. We must emphasise that the court has to
strike a balance between the inflated and
unreasonable demands of a victim and the equally
16 2010 (10) SCC 347
17 2009 (6) SCC 1

untenable claim of the opposite party saying that
nothing is payable. Sympathy for the victim does
not, and should not, come in the way of making a
correct assessment, but if a case is made out,
the court must not be chary of awarding adequate
compensation. The “adequate compensation” that we
speak of, must to some extent, be a rule of thumb
measure, and as a balance has to be struck, it
would be difficult to satisfy all the parties
concerned.11
Read full judgment here;
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0FApT99RbefQUpzbFUxRHJKZVk/edit?usp=sharing

Print Page