Functional disability assessment must reflect the impact of physical impairment on the victim's specific vocation.

The appellant, an electrician by profession, suffered grievous injuries on December 1, 2020, when the TSR (auto-rickshaw) he was traveling in overturned due to the driver’s high speed and sharp turning

The appellant remained under treatment for eight months and was issued a disability certificate on October 3, 2022, confirming a 40% permanent physical disability in his left lower limb

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded him Rs. 13,27,080/- with 9% interest, assessing his functional disability at 20% by applying a purported "rule" that functional disability is half of physical disability

The appellant challenged this assessment, seeking an enhancement of compensation

1. Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal erred in law by applying a fixed mathematical rule—taking functional disability as one-half of the physical disability—instead of assessing the impact on the claimant’s specific vocation

2. Whether the functional disability of the appellant should be enhanced considering his vocation as an electrician

The court relied on the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343, which established a triple test for assessing functional disability: (i) determining the nature of the disability (permanent or temporary), (ii) determining the extent of the disability, and (iii) assessing the effect of that disability on the specific earning capacity and vocation of the claimant

The Court clarified that there is no legal rule or principle stating that functional disability must be taken as exactly one-half of permanent physical disability

The High Court found the MACT’s reasoning in paragraphs 31 to 34 of the impugned award to be based on an "erroneous proposition of law"

The Court observed that while physical disability was certified at 40%, its impact on earning capacity depends entirely on the nature of the job. Given the appellant's vocation as an electrician—a role requiring significant physical mobility and the use of limbs for climbing or standing—the Court determined that the impact of a 40% lower limb disability is substantial.

The Court rejected the arbitrary 20% functional disability assessment and increased it to 50% to reflect the actual loss of earning capacity in the appellant's specific trade

The Court enhanced the total compensation from Rs. 13,27,080 to Rs. 26,54,386, resulting in an enhancement of Rs. 13,27,306. The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the enhanced amount with 9% interest before the MACT within four weeks. The Court further directed the immediate release of Rs. 5,00,000 to the claimant, with the remainder to be secured in phased Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs).