Hanumantharaju B (Dead) by LR v. M Akram Pasha
Background
The original appellant, a CRPF Sub-Inspector, was seriously injured in a 2010 motorcycle accident in Bengaluru when a car turned into his path; he required multiple hospitalisations and surgery, suffered a heart attack from the stress, and was eventually medically discharged from service. A Medical Board assessed his disability at 61.94%, while a doctor later appointed by the Tribunal as an independent commissioner assessed it higher, at 77.72%. The Tribunal, uncertain which figure to accept, controversially split the difference and used 50% disability, while the Karnataka High Court later applied the lower 61.94% Medical Board figure and also deducted his pension from his salary when calculating lost income, both reducing his compensation. He died during the pendency of the appeal and was represented by his legal representative.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court corrected both errors. First, relying on settled precedent (Vimal Kanwar, Helen C. Rebello), it held that pension is a separate, earned statutory benefit unrelated to the accident and must never be deducted from salary when computing loss of earnings. Second, it held that the Tribunal-appointed commissioner's disability assessment of 78%, which was never successfully challenged in cross-examination by the insurer, should have been accepted over the Medical Board's lower, non-independent figure. The Court also added a 30% "future prospects" enhancement (as required by Pranay Sethi for a claimant aged 40-50) and raised the interest rate from 6% to 7% per annum, arriving at a re-calculated total compensation of Rs. 67,36,084.
Lesson Learnt
In accident compensation cases, pension and other retirement benefits can never be deducted from a victim's salary when calculating lost income, and where a later, more rigorously tested medical assessment of disability exists and is unchallenged, it should ordinarily be preferred over an earlier, less scrutinised one.