Functional Disability Must Prevail Over Mechanical Schedule Interpretation

  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Publications
  4. /
  5. Case Snippets
  6. /
  7. Functional Disability Must...

In Kamal Dev Prasad v. Mahesh Forge, 2025 INSC 591, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering an issue of workplace injury compensation under the Employees’ Compensation Act,1932 held that a disability and loss of earning capacity should not be assessed only on the basis of the Schedule, especially when there is an ambiguity but on the actual functional loss and impact on earning capacity. The Appellant worker, a forging machine operator, lost multiple phalanges on four fingers of his right hand in a factory accident. The commissioner awarded 100% disability compensation, along with 12% interest and 50% penalty for the employer’s delay in payment. However, the High Court reduced the disability to 34% by mechanically applying Schedule 1 of the act based on the loss of phalanges of each of the fingers but not the total impact. The Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that disability should not be assessed only on the basis of the Schedule but on the actual functional loss and impact on earning capacity. The Court held that injury and loss of use of the right hand severely affected the worker’s ability to perform his job. It fixed functional disability at 50% and awarded compensation accordingly, with interest and penalty reaffirming the beneficial nature of the legislation.

Tags:

Let us help you!

If you need any help, please feel free to contact us. We will get back to you within one business day. Alternatively, if you're in a hurry, you can call us now

+91 9052538538
info@karavadi.in

Recent Case Snippets

Vidyasagar Prasad Vs. UCO Bank & Anr. 2024 INSC 810

In the case of Vidyasagar Prasad vs. UCO Bank & Anr. 2024 INSC 810, the Supreme Court upheld the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against… Read more »

Ambience Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. Ambience Island Apartment Owners, (2021) 2 SCC 163

The Supreme Court held that the execution proceedings and original proceedings are separate and independent. An appeal under S. 23 of the Consumer Protection Act will not lie… Read more »

National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.

In the case of National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., the Supreme Court dismissed a writ petition filed by the… Read more »

Disclaimer

The Rules and Regulations set forth by the Bar Council of India under Advocates Act, 1961 prohibit Advocates or Law Firms from advertising or soliciting work through public domain communications. This website is intended solely to provide information. Karavadi & Associates (“K&A”) does not aim to advertise or solicit clients through this platform. K & A disclaim any responsibility for decisions made by readers/visitors based solely on the content of this website.

By clicking 'AGREE,' readers/visitors agree and acknowledge that the information provided herein (a) does not constitute advertising or solicitation, and (b) is intended solely for their understanding of K & A services. By continuing to use this site, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as outlined in our Cookie Policy.