The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Rashid Husan and Others

For the reasons men�oned in the applica�on duly supported by affidavit of Ms. Vasudha Sharma, delay of 30 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

¶16

Applica�on stands disposed of accordingly.

¶17

CM-8373-CII-2026:

¶18

This is an applica�on under Sec�on 151 of the CPC to condone the delay of 24 days in re-filing the appeal.

¶19

For the reasons men�oned in the applica�on duly supported by affidavit of Ms. Vasudha Sharma, delay of 24 days in re-filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

¶20

Applica�on stands disposed of accordingly.

¶21

Main case.:

¶22

The present appeal has been preferred by the insurer of the offending vehicle assailing the award dated 13.10.2025, read with subsequent order dated 31.10.2025, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, whereby compensa�on to the tune of ₹27,09,200/- has been awarded in favour of the injured-claimant, Rashid Husan (respondent

¶23

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.24 11:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

CM-8372-CII-2026; CM-8373-CII-2026; CM-8374-CII-2026 in/and FAO-2288-2026 (O&M)

¶25

No.1 herein).

¶26

The sole conten�on raised by learned counsel for the appellant-insurer is that although the claimant has suffered 100% permanent physical disability, yet considering his young age of 24 years, such disability ought not to have been treated as 100% func�onal disability. It is argued that the Tribunal erred in presuming complete loss of earning capacity and consequently awarding compensa�on under the head of future loss of income on that basis.

¶27

This Court has considered the aforesaid submission and perused the material available on record, including the findings returned by the learned Tribunal.

¶28

The factum of accident dated 08.02.2023, caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle insured with the appellant, stands duly established and is not in dispute. It has further come on record that as a result of the said accident, the claimant suffered grievous injuries leading to fracture at D11 level, culmina�ng in paraplegia accompanied by loss of bladder and bowel control. The medical evidence, as appreciated by the Tribunal, clearly establishes that the claimant has been rendered permanently incapacitated, with no effec�ve control over his lower limbs and essen�al bodily func�ons.

¶29

The dis�nc�on between physical disability and func�onal disability is well recognized in law. While physical disability is assessed in medical terms, func�onal disability pertains to the impact of such disability on the earning capacity of the injured. In appropriate cases, even a lesser percentage of physical disability may result in higher func�onal disability, depending upon the nature of work and extent of impairment. Conversely, where the injury results in complete loss of bodily func�on necessary for any gainful employment, physical disability may jus�fiably be treated as equivalent to func�onal disability.

¶30

In the present case, the claimant has been rendered paraplegic. The findings recorded by the Tribunal, based on medical

¶31

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.24 11:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶32

Page No. 2 of 3 Pages

¶33

CM-8372-CII-2026; CM-8373-CII-2026; CM-8374-CII-2026 in/and FAO-2288-2026 (O&M)

¶34

evidence, indicate that he is unable to sit or walk independently and is incapable of performing normal bodily movements. Such a condi�on, by its very nature, severely restricts, if not altogether ex�nguishes, the possibility of engaging in any meaningful gainful employment, par�cularly in the absence of any evidence sugges�ng specialized skills or alterna�ve voca�onal capacity.

¶35

The conten�on of the appellant that the claimant, being young, could s�ll earn his livelihood is wholly specula�ve and unsupported by any material on record. Age, by itself, cannot mi�gate the crippling effect of a permanent and total disability of the nature suffered by the claimant. Rather, in cases of young vic�ms, the impact of such disability is more severe as it deprives them of their en�re produc�ve life.

¶36

The learned Tribunal has, therefore, rightly treated the 100% physical disability as 100% func�onal disability and assessed the loss of future earnings accordingly. The approach adopted is consistent with seDled principles governing assessment of compensa�on in motor accident claims and does not suffer from any legal infirmity, perversity, or misapprecia�on of evidence.

¶37