Accident aid must take profession as a factor: SC

The Supreme Court has emphasised the necessity of tailoring disability assessments to the specific requirement of an individual’s profession

The Supreme Court has emphasised the necessity of tailoring disability assessments to the specific requirement of an individual’s profession, as it enhanced the compensation awarded to a diamond cutter who lost vision in one eye in a road accident.

A bench of justices Sanjay Karol and Manmohan declared that for a diamond cutter -- since the profession demands absolute precision -- the loss of vision in one eye constitutes total or 100% functional disability. (ANI)

A bench of justices Sanjay Karol and Manmohan declared that for a diamond cutter -- since the profession demands absolute precision -- the loss of vision in one eye constitutes total or 100% functional disability, a factor critical in determining compensation in motor accident cases.

“Given the nature of the profession and the indispensability of the ability to see in carrying out the job required, we are of the view that the facts and circumstances of the case warrant that disability of the claimant-appellant be taken as 100%,” held the bench in a recent decision.

The case arose from a 2005 road accident in Kerala, where the claimant, then a skilled diamond cutter, suffered grievous injuries when his motorcycle collided with an auto-rickshaw. The collision left him permanently blind in one eye. While a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) initially calculated his disability at 49% and awarded him ₹8.7 lakh, the high court later revised the functional disability to 65% and increased the compensation to ₹10.57 lakh. Dissatisfied with this computation, the victim appealed to the Supreme Court.

Allowing the plea, the court underscored the importance of considering the unique demands of a profession when assessing disability. It noted that diamond cutting requires exceptional precision and clear binocular vision for tasks such as cleaving and sawing, adding a partial loss of sight would render such work almost impossible.

Referring to the landmark judgment in Rajkumar vs Ajay Kumar (2011), which outlined the principles for calculating disability in relation to earning capacity, the court concluded that the claimant’s functional disability must be treated as 100% given his profession.

“Diamond cutting, as even the uninitiated can understand, is a task of immense skill which involves a great degree of precision and exactitude. The main process of cleaving and sawing clearly can be completed only when a person is able to see clearly, especially given the size of these precious stones. Seeing only with one eye, unquestionably makes it greatly difficult to effectively carry out these processes,” noted the bench.

The Supreme Court also addressed the inadequacy of compensation for pain and suffering in the earlier awards. Citing a 2024 judgment in KS Muralidhar vs R Subbulakshmi, the bench noted that pain and suffering extend beyond physical discomfort to encompass the emotional and psychological toll of losing one’s profession and aspirations. It raised the compensation under this head from ₹50,000 to ₹1.5 lakh, observing that the claimant’s inability to pursue his vocation compounded his suffering and economic losses.

The court ultimately awarded ₹15.98 lakh in compensation, substantially higher than the amounts determined by the lower courts.

The judgment sets a key precedent for assessing disabilities in motor accident claims as it urges tribunals and courts to take into account the specific occupational requirement of claimants when determining compensation.