The record
Written from the 1 report below. Nothing here is unsourced.
- The Supreme Court has raised the compensation for a woman who was blinded and suffered severe injuries, including a permanent colostomy, in a 2011 road accident from ₹2.94 crore to ₹3.77 crore.
- The Court held that her continuing to hold a job with IBM Daksh, thanks to extensive accommodations like special software and flexible hours, did not mean her earning capacity was unaffected, since she had lost normal career progression and had spent 19 months on unpaid leave.
- Treating her functional disability as 100% rather than the 80% assessed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, it recalculated her loss of future earnings at ₹2.42 crore and enhanced other heads including pain and suffering and future medical expenses, with 7.5% interest.
- The Court also awarded her ₹20 lakh for loss of marriage prospects, while declining her claim as the widow of the man who died in the accident due to insufficient proof of marriage.
What to watch next
- Whether this 'open, competitive labour market' standard for assessing functional disability is applied in other motor accident compensation cases.
- The Court's statement that the ₹20 lakh marriage-prospects award is not a precedent, which may limit its use in future claims.
- Disbursement of the enhanced ₹3.77 crore award with 7.5% interest by the insurer.
Who said what1
Only words found exactly in the article are shown, attributed and linked to the line they came from.
Supreme Court of India
1 quote · 1 outlet
“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.”
In the article
…accordingly treated her functional disability as 100%, rather than the 80% assessed by the High Court, after taking into account the Medical Board’s finding of 100% permanent physical impairment of the whole body. “ 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. 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…
Coverage1
All filed from India
Named India · IBM Daksh · Priyanka Das · Sushant Prabhakaran · NV Anjaria · Punjab and Haryana High Court · Supreme Court of India · SVN Bhatti
The 1 report is listed beside the record.
Ask this story
Answers cite the reports above, or say they can't.