Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court

Disarticulation Of Limb Entitles Full Functional Disability Recognition For Compensation” Rules Calcutta High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a notable judgment dated May 9, 2024, the Hon’ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta of the Calcutta High Court modified the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Paschim Medinipur, granting enhanced compensation to Joydev Malik, who sustained severe injuries resulting in the amputation of his left leg from the knee following a road mishap on October 20, 2007.

The court centered its decision on the misassessment of the claimant’s permanent disability and income, previously set at 80% by the Tribunal based on a monthly income of Rs. 3,000. The High Court, acknowledging the appellant’s more severe functional disability and the inadequacy of the earlier compensation, recalculated the compensation incorporating future prospects and non-pecuniary losses.

Joydev Malik appealed the Tribunal’s award of Rs. 4,67,800 with 8% interest, contending it underassessed his disability and failed to consider future prospects and non-pecuniary damages. Malik, previously employed as a helper-cum-driver, argued his amputation rendered him completely disabled in terms of his profession, though the Tribunal had accepted only an 80% disability.

Justice Gupta, after reviewing the submissions and precedents, increased the future prospects addition to 40% of the actual income and awarded Rs. 2,00,000 for non-pecuniary damages, such as pain and suffering. The total revised compensation was thereby increased to Rs. 8,04,800. The judgment emphasized that:

The claimant’s functional disability could effectively be considered as 100% due to his inability to continue in his previous employment.

The correct calculation of compensation must include a consideration of future prospects and non-pecuniary losses.

Decision: The court ordered the enhanced compensation amount of Rs. 3,37,000, in addition to the originally awarded Rs. 4,67,800, thus totaling Rs. 8,04,800, which shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim till final payment. The respondent, National Insurance Company Limited, is directed to deposit the enhanced amount within eight weeks from the date of judgment.

Date of Decision: May 9, 2024

Joydev Malik versus National Insurance Company Limited and Another

Latest Legal News