Functional disability assessment for amputation must evaluate specific impact on the claimant's vocation and earning capacity.

On November 10, 2010, the claimant, a Marketing Executive, was riding a motorcycle when he was hit by a dumper (HR-55E-7848) driven rashly and negligently

The claimant sustained a crush injury to his right foot, which subsequently became gangrenous and required amputation

The Medical Board certified a 60% permanent physical disability of the right lower limb

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded Rs. 15,28,240/- with 7.5% interest, assessing the functional disability at 40%

The Insurance Company appealed, contending the functional disability should be reduced to 30%

Whether the assessment of 40% functional disability by the MACT was excessive given a 60% physical disability of a single limb

Whether the amputation of a lower limb for a Marketing Executive justifies a functional disability assessment higher than the medical percentage of the specific limb

The Court primarily applied the principles regarding the assessment of future loss of earnings as laid down by the Supreme Court in *Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343*

This precedent establishes that "functional disability" is distinct from "medical disability"; the Tribunal must determine the actual impact of the physical impairment on the claimant's specific vocation and earning capacity

It further clarified that while the percentage of loss of earning capacity is generally not the same as the percentage of permanent disability, the Tribunal must evaluate what the claimant can or cannot do post-accident relative to their previous profession

The Court noted that the claimant was a Marketing Executive, a role requiring significant mobility

Although the medical disability was 60% of the right lower limb, the Court observed that amputation results in a "stark reduction of functionality" which directly impacts earning capacity, especially as job opportunities for those with limited mobility are "massively reduced"

Applying the *Raj Kumar* test, the Court found that the MACT’s assessment of 40% functional disability (which is less than the 60% physical limb disability) was appropriate and justified given the nature of the claimant’s employment and the restrictive nature of his injury

The appeal filed by the Insurance Company was dismissed

The Court directed the release of the balance awarded amount along with interest to the claimant and ordered the refund of the statutory deposit to the appellant