Desk job isn’t enough: Why Delhi High Court ordered Rs 41 lakh for Cop who lost leg at picket duty

“Claimant, at the time of the accident, was aged about 54 years and was serving as a Head Constable with the Delhi Police. The Disability Certificate records 70 per cent permanent physical disability in relation to the right lower limb on account of below-knee amputation. The nature of duties discharged by a police officer, particularly one serving in the field, cannot be equated with a sedentary occupation,” the Delhi High Court said on May 19.

Justice Anish Dayal said that he may be relegated to a desk job, but he would have been seriously disadvantaged over his colleagues, leading to loss of promotional opportunities and normal mobility.

The Delhi High Court highlighted that the duties attached to the post necessarily require mobility and prolonged standing to carry out duties such as checking of vehicles, and maintenance of public order.

It underscored that in these circumstances, the amputation suffered by the claimant has undoubtedly resulted in a serious restriction of his functional ability insofar as the discharge of his official duties, stating that no doubt he may be relegated to a desk job, but he would have been seriously disadvantaged over his colleagues, leading to loss of promotional opportunities and normal mobility.

Tribunal rightly assessed functional disability at 70%: Order

• In the present case, applying the principles laid down in Raj Kumar v Ajay Kumar, this court is required to assess the effect of the permanent disability on the claimant’s earning capacity and not merely adopt the medical percentage of disability.
• In view of the vocation of the injured, the tribunal is not amiss in assessing functional disability at 70 per cent, and the same does not warrant any interference by this court.
• On the issue of multiplier, which ought to be granted to the injured who continued as a head constable, the law is well settled that, for an injured person in a public sector job, who would retire on superannuation, post-retirement loss of income must be computed by applying a multiplier of ‘9’, considering retirement at 60 years of age.
• This court is not inclined to accept the argument of counsel for appellant that no loss of future income should be awarded.
• Accordingly, in light of the decision of this court in Govind Singh Mauni, the multiplier of ‘9’ would be applicable as opposed to ‘11’ applied by the tribunal.

Compensation for loss of future

• Future prospects at 15 per cent should be granted since the injured was 54 years of age at the time of the accident for the calculation of loss of future income.
• The tribunal has awarded Rs 1.10 lakh for one prosthetic limb, and Rs 50,000 has been awarded towards future medical expenses for repairs and a change in prosthesis.
• Even though no specific plea with regard to the enhancement of compensation on account of a prosthetic limb has been raised by the respondent/claimant, this court is duty-bound to award just compensation, irrespective of whether the same has been specifically pleaded.
• In Mohd Sabeer v UP SRTC, it was provided that prosthetic needs to be changed every five to six years, and, therefore, considering that the injured is 54 years of age at the date of the accident and taking the potential life expectancy up to 70 years, would require prosthetic for approximately another 16 years.
• Using that basis of calculation, at least three replacements would be required by him if the claimant chooses to take a prosthetic.
• The amount for three possible replacements of the prosthetic, along with the annual maintenance cost, will have to be granted to the injured/claimant.

Insurance company v disability percentage of policeman

The HDFC General Insurance Co Ltd has challenged the MACT order that allowed the claim of an injured head constable with Delhi Police and awarded compensation of Rs 41.66 lakh along with interest at nine per cent per annum from the date of filing of the petition. The police official was injured during duty, and his physical disability was assessed at 70 per cent in relation to the right lower limb. At the time of the accident, he was 54 years old.

The accident occurred on January 19, 2014, at about 10:00 PM, when the claimant and his colleague were on picket duty and were checking vehicles and barricades put on the road. During checking, the claimant tried to stop a Hyundai I-10 car coming from the Geeta Colony Side at high speed. The driver, without stopping, drove the car into the barricades and hit the claimant, who was standing near the barricades.

As a result of the accident, the claimant sustained crush injuries on his right leg along with multiple fractures. The claimant/injured was taken to LNJP hospital, and his right leg below the knee was amputated. The injured was later shifted to Max Hospital, where he remained admitted from January 21, 2014, to January 31, 2014.

FIR was registered under Sections 279/338 of the IPC, against the driver of the offending vehicle, and subsequently, a chargesheet was filed against the driver.

Arguments of Insurance company

Appearing for the insurance company, advocate Rajeev M Roy submitted that the tribunal has erred in assessing the functional disability of the injured at 70 per cent.

It was contended that though the permanent physical disability in relation to the right lower limb was assessed at 70 per cent as per the disability certificate, the functional disability could not have been taken as equivalent to physical disability.

He further submitted that the tribunal has wrongly awarded compensation for the loss of future income. It was contended that the injured neither lost his employment nor suffered any diminution in income on account of the accident.