Bombay HC Adds ₹4.71 Lakh To Vegetable Vendor’s Compensation, Treating Her 30% Disability As 100% Loss Of Income

The claimant, a vegetable vendor aged 51, was injured while travelling in a tempo insured by Oriental Insurance Company.

The Tribunal found her to be a gratuitous passenger, assessed her disability at 30%, and directed the insurer to pay compensation first and recover it from the tempo’s owner.

The insurer’s appeal against the award was dismissed for non-prosecution, with no restoration application filed; the claimant’s legal representatives pursued a cross-objection seeking enhancement.

The High Court considered the claimant’s evidence of multiple fractures and inability to resume her work, as well as the medical evidence and the Tribunal’s assessment of compensation.

In Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343, the Supreme Court distinguished physical disability from functional disability: the relevant assessment is the effect of the injury on the claimant’s actual earning capacity, which may be total even where the physical disability is lower.

The judgment also applied the multiplier method to calculate loss of income, adopting a multiplier of 11 for the claimant’s age.

It referred to K.S. Muralidhar v. R. Subbulakshmi, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3385, in considering compensation for pain and suffering, but assessed the amount on the facts of this case.

The Court further treated the insurer’s dismissed appeal, which had not been restored, as preventing it from reopening the liability issue in these proceedings.

The Court accepted that the claimant’s injuries—including fractures to both lower limbs and other bones—prevented her from returning to her work as a vegetable vendor.

Applying the functional-disability principle in Raj Kumar, it treated her loss of earning capacity as 100%, despite the 30% medical disability assessment.

It assessed her monthly income at Rs. 3,000 and applied a multiplier of 11, while also revising certain non-pecuniary and incidental heads of compensation.

On liability, the Court declined to accept the insurer’s argument that it should not be required to pay first, reasoning that its appeal had already been dismissed and no restoration application had been filed.

The insurer was directed to deposit the amount before the Tribunal within 10 weeks and was permitted to recover it from the owner; the cross-objectors were permitted to withdraw the deposited amount.