An IQ of 60 may justify assessing functional disability and loss of earning capacity at 100%.

On 18 February 2011, Zakir Hussain Talukdar was riding a motorcycle when truck No. AS-10-3439 allegedly, due to rash and negligent driving, collided with the motorcycle, causing him grievous injuries, including a head injury and fracture of the right femur.

His father, Fakar Uddin Talukdar, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karimganj. The vehicle owner proceeded ex parte, while Oriental Insurance contested the claim, including on the ground that the vehicle was not validly insured.

The Tribunal awarded compensation of ₹20,00,000 with interest at 6% per annum.

Although the Medical Board assessed the victim’s physical impairment at 10% owing to a 2 cm shortening of the right lower limb, it recorded an intelligence quotient of 60 and recommended further neurological and neurosurgical evaluation.

The Tribunal nevertheless assessed the victim’s functional disability and loss of earning capacity at 100%. The insurer challenged that assessment under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Whether the Tribunal was justified in assessing the injured claimant’s functional disability and loss of earning capacity at 100% on the basis of his intellectual impairment and other injuries.

Whether the Tribunal ought to have obtained a further assessment by a neurologist or neurosurgeon before determining the extent of the claimant’s functional disability.

Whether the assessment of 100% loss of earning capacity could be sustained despite the absence of specific evidence regarding the claimant’s pre-accident income or employment.

The appeal was considered under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which permits an appeal against an award of a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

Applying Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343, the Court reiterated that the percentage of medical or physical disability cannot be mechanically equated with loss of earning capacity; the Tribunal must assess the claimant’s activities after the accident, his vocation and work before the accident, and whether the disability has totally or partially impaired his earning capacity.

The Court also relied on R. Halle v. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., 2026 INSC 260, which recognised that intellectual disability, together with other physical limitations, may justify a finding of 100% functional disability.

The beneficial and welfare-oriented object of the Motor Vehicles Act requires an award of just compensation and cautions against interference with a reasoned Tribunal award absent sound grounds.

The Court held that the 10% physical impairment recorded by the Medical Board did not determine the claimant’s actual functional disability. The unchallenged Medical Board assessment placed his intelligence quotient at 60, which the Court regarded as falling within the range of mild intellectual disability and as impairing the cognitive faculties necessary to independently manage a business or undertake gainful employment.

Although further neurological assessment had been recommended, the insurer had not challenged the recorded IQ assessment and had adduced no contrary medical evidence.

Applying Raj Kumar, the Court considered the practical effect of the intellectual and physical injuries on the claimant’s ability to resume his vocation or perform any gainful work.

The available material indicated that he had been engaged in business for his livelihood, and the Tribunal was entitled to conclude that an IQ of 60, coupled with the other injuries, rendered him incapable of earning.

Consequently, the finding of 100% functional disability was neither unsupported nor unreasonable.

The insurer’s appeal was dismissed, and the award of ₹20,00,000 with 6% annual interest was left undisturbed.

The records of the claim case were directed to be returned to the concerned Tribunal along with a copy of the judgment.