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

Pulicherla Nagaraju alias Nagaraja Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh; (2006) 11 SCC 444

The Court reaffirmed that the mere fact that a witness is related to the deceased should not be the sole reason for rejecting their testimony. Instead, the evidence should be assessed for its trustworthiness and credibility. If found reliable and probable, it can be considered, but if it raises suspicion, it should be rejected. Read more »

Banshidhar Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., 2024 INSC 757

In Banshidhar Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., 2024 INSC 757, the Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled that the rejection of the appellant’s bid for failing to submit a Power of Attorney, while allowing another bidder to rectify a similar deficiency and awarding the contract to them, was arbitrary and violative of Article 14... Read more » Read more »

Arbitrability of Claims Cannot Be Decided at Section 11 Stage

In Office for Alternative Architecture v. Ircon Infrastructure And Services Ltd., 2025 INSC 665, the Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside an order of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court order which had excluded certain claims as non-arbitrable in view of “excepted matters” clauses in the contract, while appointing an arbitral tribunal under Section 11 of the... Read more » 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.