Driving license renewal does not ipso facto establish restoration of earning capacity for professional drivers.

The appellant-insurance company sought to assail the order dated 26.07.2019 passed by the Commissioner, Employee's Compensation, which awarded compensation to Respondent No. 1 (the claimant)

The claimant, a 29-year-old truck driver, met with an accident on 21.10.2016 during the course of his employment while transporting rice from Delhi to Mumbai

He sustained severe injuries to his left leg, resulting in an assessed 26% permanent physical disability

The Commissioner determined that this physical impairment resulted in a 100% loss of earning capacity, as the claimant could no longer perform his duties as a driver

The insurance company challenged this, primarily arguing that the claimant had subsequently renewed his driving license, which allegedly proved his fitness to work

1. Whether the renewal of a driving license post-accident establishes that a claimant is fit for vocation and thus negates a finding of 100% loss of earning capacity

2. Whether the assessment of 100% loss of earning capacity based on a 26% physical disability was erroneous

3. Whether the appeal involved a substantial question of law as required under Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923

The court applied Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, which restricts appeals to "substantial questions of law"

It relied on Section 15(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which mandates a medical certificate for license renewal only for transport vehicle drivers who have attained 40 years of age

The court cited the Rajasthan High Court decision in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Rakesh Kumar Saini & Anr. regarding the lack of medical certificate requirements for younger applicants during license renewal

it applied the principle from Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343, which dictates that functional disability/loss of earning capacity must be assessed relative to the specific nature of the claimant’s vocation

The Court rejected the appellant's contention regarding the driving license renewal on three grounds. First, the document was not presented before the learned Commissioner, nor was the claimant cross-examined on it

Second, under Section 15(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, because the claimant was under 40 years old, he was not required to submit a medical certificate for renewal; thus, the renewal did not prove physical fitness

Third, the Court reasoned that the ability to drive for short durations does not equate to the restoration of full earning capacity for a commercial truck driver, a role requiring prolonged physical exertion and sustained mobility

The Court emphasized that functional disability is distinct from physical disability; for a driver, even a partial limb injury can lead to total loss of earning capacity in that specific vocation

Finally, the Court noted that findings of fact by a Commissioner cannot be interfered with under Section 30 unless they are shown to be perverse

The Court affirmed the Commissioner’s assessment of 100% functional disability, concluding that there was no perversity in the findings and no substantial question of law was raised

The impugned order directing the payment of compensation was upheld