Delhi HC Raises Injured Stage Artist’s Compensation To Rs 22.66 Lakh, Assessing 25% Functional Disability For 16% Right-Leg Impairment

On 15 December 2011, Natraj Hasrat was injured while travelling as a pillion rider on a scooty that was struck by the offending vehicle near T-point, Rithala.

The MACT awarded him ₹9,08,871 with interest at 9% per annum.

The insurer appealed against the assessment of his income, functional disability and non-pecuniary compensation; the claimant cross-appealed seeking enhancement, relying on his employment as an artist with Kingdom of Dreams and a monthly salary of ₹30,000.

His permanent disability was certified at 16% in relation to the right lower limb.

The judgment identifies no specific statutory provision as the basis of its decision. It applies the principle that functional disability must be assessed in light of the claimant’s occupation and the actual effect of the injury on the ability to pursue that vocation; the percentage of physical disability does not, by itself, determine functional disability.

In support, the Court referred to Rekha Jain v. National Insurance Company Ltd., (2013) 8 SCC 389, where a 30% permanent disability in an artist’s case was assessed as 100% functional disability, and to Shibeet Prassana v. Jagroop, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 6879, where a flautist’s functional disability was assessed at 50% despite 32% permanent disability.

The judgment also treated proved salary evidence, including employer testimony and employment records, as relevant to determining income.

The Court considered the claimant’s employment agreement, which described his acting and performance duties and required him to maintain physical fitness, together with the evidence of his ankle and foot condition and the medical testimony that he could perform activities such as dancing, running and jumping only with difficulty and pain.

It found that the injury would seriously impede his work as a stage artist, but, in the absence of further evidence, assessed functional disability at 25% rather than treating it as total.

On income, the Court accepted the employer’s evidence and the agreement and ledger records showing a fixed monthly salary of ₹30,000, with ₹3,000 deducted as TDS; it therefore assessed the claimant’s income at ₹27,000 per month.

The Court left the non-pecuniary awards unchanged.

The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced amount, with accrued interest at 9% per annum, before the MACT within six weeks, for release to the claimant as a lump sum.

Any portion of the original award still unpaid was also directed to be released to him as a lump sum; the appeals were disposed of accordingly.