### Functional Disability Assessment Depends on Impact of Injuries on Specific Vocational Earning Capacity

On May 10, 2012, Sanjay Sachdeva (the claimant) suffered grievous injuries when his motorcycle was hit by a rashly driven truck

The Medical Board certified the claimant with 93% permanent physical disability in his right lower limb

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded compensation of Rs. 39,10,090 with 9% interest, assessing functional disability at 40% and benchmark monthly income at Rs. 12,000

Both the Insurance Company (challenging the income assessment and disability percentage) and the Claimant (seeking enhancement) filed cross-appeals

Whether the functional disability of the claimant should be assessed higher than the 40% determined by the MACT given a 93% limb disability

Whether the multipliers and future prospects were correctly applied as per established legal principles

Whether the benchmark income of Rs. 12,000 per month was reasonable despite a lack of formal proof of income

The Court applied the principles from National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) regarding the standardization of future prospects (40% for victims under 40 years) and the application of correct multipliers based on age

It further relied on Sandeep Khanuja v. Atul Dande (2017) and Mohd. Sabeer v. U.P. SRTC (2023), which establish that for professional or self-employed individuals, a "myopic view" of sedentary work must be avoided, as physical mobility is essential to augment income and perform professional duties

The Court rejected the Insurance Company's argument that a "desk job" requires minimal movement, noting that as an accountant and fashion designer with professional skills, the claimant's inability to move freely severely impacts his earning capacity

Following Mohd. Sabeer, the Court enhanced the functional disability from 40% to 70% because the claimant’s right leg is effectively non-functional

Regarding income, the Court upheld the MACT’s assessment of Rs. 12,000, noting that while ITRs were not formally proved, the acknowledgement receipts and the claimant's professional qualifications (Fashion Designing and Tally) supported a benchmark above minimum wages

The Court found the MACT’s logic of increasing the claimant's age due to recovery time "illogical" and recalculated the multiplier to 16 based on his actual age of 34 at the time of the accident

The Court held that functional disability is 70% and the correct multiplier is 16

The total compensation was enhanced from Rs. 39,10,000 to Rs. 53,04,010 with 9% interest per annum

The Court directed the Insurance Company to deposit the enhanced amount within four weeks and provided a structured release plan through FDRs to ensure the claimant's financial security