Continued employment does not bar disability compensation for lasting non-work and post-retirement limitations.

The claimant, a 57-year-old KSRTC security guard, sustained a trimalleolar fracture of the left ankle when the insured TATA Sumo collided with his scooter on 4 June 2014. He sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Tribunal awarded compensation under several heads, including medical expenses, loss of income during recuperation, disability, and amenities. The insurer appealed, contending that the award was excessive because the claimant continued working and had sustained only one fracture.

The claimant maintained that his permanent disability affected his activities outside work and would continue to do so after retirement.

Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of compensation called for reduction.

Whether separate compensation for loss of amenities was justified where compensation for disability had also been awarded.

Under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, an injured claimant may recover compensation for established accident-related loss and injury.

It recognized that continued employment does not necessarily preclude compensation for disability, since the disability may affect activities outside employment and after retirement.

The respondent relied on Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain v. Regional Manager, UPSRTC, AIR 2023 SC 186, in support of disability compensation; the judgment records that submission but does not separately discuss the precedent.

The High Court found no basis to reduce the awards for pain and suffering, medical expenses, incidental expenses, or loss of income during the claimant’s treatment and recuperation: the fracture was structural, the medical award was supported by original bills, and the leave records supported the claim for lost leave.

It also retained the future medical-expense award because the ankle plate would require removal, and upheld the disability award notwithstanding the claimant’s continued employment, given the disability’s effects beyond work and after retirement.

However, it held that a separate award for loss of amenities was not justified in addition to the disability compensation and set aside that amount.

The operative order states that compensation was reduced from Rs. 4,06,600 to Rs. 3,81,000, with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition until deposit; it also directs transmission of the amount in deposit and deposit of any balance within six weeks, followed by release to the claimant.

The judgment’s earlier description gives the original award as Rs. 4,06,000, so the original figure is internally inconsistent.