Supreme Court delivers landmark ruling on functional disability in motor accident claims.
SC ENHANCES COMPENSATION IN ANOOP MAHESHWARI MOTOR ACCIDENT CASE
CASE SUMMARY – In Anoop Maheshwari vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2025), the Supreme Court ruled on compensation for a grievously injured motor accident victim. The claimant, who suffered hemipelvectomy, challenged lower courts’ reduction of disability percentage and rejection of income tax returns. The Court upheld 50% functional disability, accepted income based on tax returns, awarded full medical expenses, restored sums for prosthetics and attendant care, and added ₹10 lakh for future prosthetic costs. The total compensation was enhanced to ₹48.44 lakh with 6% interest. This ruling clarifies assessment standards in motor accident compensation claims.
| ASPECTS | DETAILS |
| Case Title | Anoop Maheshwari vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. |
| Introduction | Appeal by claimant seeking enhanced compensation for injuries sustained in a 2007 motor accident involving a negligent truck driver. |
| Factual Background | Claimant suffered hemipelvectomy (loss of leg + pelvic portion). Tribunal awarded ₹13.23 lakh, High Court enhanced to ₹23.09 lakh. Claimant challenged further reduction in disability % and income. |
| Legal Issues | (1) Whether disability should be 90% (medical) or 50% (functional). (2) Whether income tax returns should be accepted as basis for compensation. (3) Quantum of medical expenses and prosthetic replacement costs. |
| Applicable Law |
|
| Analysis | SC upheld 50% functional disability, accepted IT returns, allowed full medical bills, restored amounts omitted by HC (attendant, prosthetic costs), added ₹10 lakh for future prosthetic expenses. |
| Conclusion | SC enhanced total compensation to ₹48,44,790 with 6% interest, payable by insurer within 3 months. |
| Current Scenario | Judgment delivered on 04 September 2025, providing clarity on functional disability assessment and acceptance of IT returns in accident compensation. |
“Functional disability, not just medical disability, determines fair compensation.”
SOURCE – SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
READ ALSO – SC RESTORES TRIAL COURT VERDICT IN MINOR RAPE CASE – REAFFIRMS POCSO PROTECTION
