Beyond Medical Certificate: Functional Disability And Occupational Justice In Motor Accident Compensation
In a recent judgement, the Supreme Court enhanced the compensation that was awarded to M. Paramesh, a mason from Tamil Nadu who lost his right leg above the knee because of a road accident, from ₹23.86 lakh to ₹40.29 lakh.[1] Before the matter reached the Supreme Court, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had awarded him ₹10.84 lakh while the Madras High Court increased it to ₹23.86 lakh after revising his monthly income and adding future prospects. However, the Supreme Court found that there was an error in the way the future prospects had been calculated. It corrected the calculation and also awarded compensation for future medical expenses and the maintenance of his artificial limb. A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria emphasised the important distinction between physical disability and functional disability. Although Paramesh's disability certificate assessed his physical impairment to be at 70 per cent, and both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the Madras High Court treated this percentage as the basis for calculating his loss of earning capacity, the Supreme Court highlighted how this approach was wrong and legally flawed. Instead, it held that a person's functional disability i.e. the extent to which the injury actually affects (stops) him from earning a livelihood, can be assessed at a higher rate than his actual physical disability. For Paramesh, the Court fixed that number at 100 per cent, even though his medical certificate said 70, thereby acknowledging that the legal consequences of an injury cannot always be captured by medical percentages alone.
Interestingly, the very same week, a different bench of the Supreme Court decided an almost identical case involving a carpenter named Shankar Dutt. He too had lost his right leg above the knee in a road accident. His physical disability was also fixed lower than the functional loss the Court later assessed. The bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice N.V. Anjaria also pointed out how carpentry inherently requires a person to sit in cross-legged position or squat to do his work, and after the amputation, Dutt could no longer do either. The Court called this loss "total" and raised his compensation from ₹11.51 lakh to ₹35.95 lakh.[2] The two cases highlight how the severity of an injury or a disability cannot be assessed in isolation from the victim's occupation or his nature of work.
However, this is not a very new idea. The foundation for this idea was laid in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011), where a man who was training to become an engineer had lost his right hand and was assessed to have 70 per cent permanent disability. The Court made it clear that the percentage of physical disability "cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity." [3] Instead, it said that courts should look at three things: what the injured person can still do after the accident, the nature of the work they were doing, and how far the injury has actually affected their ability to earn a livelihood. What makes Paramesh's case significant is the way this principle was applied. The Court considered the realities of his occupation and emphasised that as a mason, his work depended entirely on physical mobility, and there was no suggestion that he could continue in another occupation since masonry was his only skill.
Courts have commonly used medical certificates for assessing compensation because they provide a clear and objective measure of physical disability. However, they only indicate what the body has lost, not what the person has lost in terms of his livelihood. Often the same injury may have different impact on different people depending upon the work they do. An office worker may still continue to do his job after such an injury. He may have the option of paid leave/health insurance or alternate job opportunities. However, a daily wage mason may lose his only source of income because of the injury caused, while receiving none of such benefits due to the informal nature of his work. This is the reality for a large section of India's workforce. According to the International Labour Organization (ILO), nearly 90 per cent of workers in India are employed in the informal sector, where access to paid leave, social security and employment protection is often limited.[4] For a mason, the body is his human capital. It is the resource on which his livelihood depends. When an accident destroys that capital, the loss goes far beyond just the physical injury suffered. The Supreme Court's judgement recognised this difference and moved beyond the medical percentage.
The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which India ratified in 2007, both highlight the same idea.[5] The Preamble to the CRPD recognises that disability is an evolving concept and results from the interaction between persons with impairments and attitudinal and environmental barriers. Article 1 also recognises that long-term impairments can become disabling when they interact with different barriers which prevent a person from participating fully and effectively in society. The RPwD Act reflects the same understanding. Under Section 2(c), the term "barrier" includes communicational, cultural, economic, environmental, institutional, political, social, attitudinal and structural barriers. Section 2(s) then defines a "person with disability" as someone whose long-term impairment, in interaction with barriers, limits their equal participation in society.[6]
The reasoning given by the Supreme Court can also be viewed from the perspective of Capability Approach discussed by Amartya Sen who argued that a person's well-being depends not merely upon his physical condition but also the opportunities that he has to live a life he values.[7] Scholars like Sophie Mitra have also later applied this idea to disability and argued that we should move beyond the medical model of disability (which treats it as a fixed individual impairment), towards a capability-based approach that understands disability as a loss of opportunities and capabilities rather than simply a medical problem.[8] This approach further helps in understanding the fact that justice requires people to have the basic capabilities necessary to live with dignity and achieve human flourishing, rather than focusing solely on their physical condition.
The Court's way of looking beyond medical percentage also reflects the broader values of the Indian Constitution. The Preamble speaks of justice, equality and the dignity of the individual, while Article 21 has long been understood to protect not only life but also the right to live with dignity and earn a livelihood. [9]
Even though these judgements do not directly deal with the issue, they raise a wider question and that question is about the unpaid work. If courts recognise the loss of livelihood suffered by a manual labourer, should they also recognise the loss suffered by homemakers whose work goes unpaid, never entering the market domain even when it has real value? The Supreme Court has recognised the value of unpaid domestic work in earlier cases.[10] This suggests that the idea of "loss" is gradually being understood in a broader and more realistic way.
The Supreme Court's approach is encouraging, but more still needs to be done. At present, functional disability is worked out from case to case, and that can sometimes lead to different outcomes in similar situations. The wider impact of road accidents also shows why a more consistent approach is needed. A road accident brings serious financial hardships for many families in India. A World Bank study found that more than 75 per cent of poor households experienced a decline in income after a road crash, with many losing an amount equal to over seven months of household income.[11] Clearer guidelines that take into account both medical evidence and the nature of a person's work would make the process fairer and more consistent. Compensation is definitely important, but it should not be limited to monetary relief alone. It should also include rehabilitation, retraining, and other forms of long-term support that can help an injured person regain both independence and their livelihood.
In the end, together the judgements in Paramesh and Dutt show that disability is much more than medical certificates alone and cannot be fully understood merely with the help of percentages. A medical certificate can measure physical impairment but it cannot truly reflect the opportunities, the livelihood and the independence that may be lost because of that impairment.
M. Paramesh v. VRL Logistics Ltd. & Anr. 2026 INSC 655 ↑
Shankar Dutt v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2026 INSC 656 ↑
Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343 ↑
International Labour Organization, India Employment Report, 2024: Youth Employment, Education and Skills, available at https://www.ilo.org/sites/default/files/2024-08/India Employment - web_8 April.pdf ↑
United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2006, Preamble & Art. 1, available at https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities.html ↑
The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, ss. 2(c), 2(s), available at https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/2155 ↑
Amartya Sen, Development as Freedom (Oxford University Press, 1999) ↑
Sophie Mitra,“The Capability Approach and Disability,” Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 16(4) (2006) available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251786648_The_Capability_Approach_and_Disability ↑
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, (1985) 3 SCC 545 ↑
Shishu Pal @ Shish Ram & Ors. v. Surjeet & Ors., 2026 INSC 634 ↑
World Bank & SaveLIFE Foundation, Traffic Crash Injuries and Disabilities: The Burden on Indian Society (2021), available at https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2021/02/13/road-crashes-in-india-increase-household-poverty-and-debt ↑
Views are personal.