Functional disability assessment must reflect vocational impact and include future prospects in permanent disability compensation.

On September 21, 2012, the appellant’s motorcycle was struck from behind by a truck (bearing registration no. HR-39A-0085) driven rashly and negligently by respondent no. 1

The appellant, aged 21 and allegedly working as a lift mechanic, suffered 88% permanent locomotor impairment in his right lower limb

Medical evidence indicated the limb was rendered nearly non-functional, preventing the appellant from walking, climbing stairs, or standing without support

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (‘MACT’) awarded total compensation of Rs. 9,44,280, assessing functional disability at 50% and omitting future prospects

The appellant moved the High Court seeking enhancement on the grounds of undervalued functional disability, lack of future prospects, and depressed non-pecuniary damages

1. Whether the functional disability of the appellant should be assessed at a higher percentage than the 50% determined by the Tribunal

2. Whether the appellant is entitled to an addition for future prospects in the calculation of loss of future earnings

3. Whether the compensation awarded under non-pecuniary heads (pain and suffering, loss of amenities) was adequate given the nature of the injuries

Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343, which mandates that tribunals assess the actual impact of a permanent disability on the claimant’s specific vocation and earning capacity rather than relying solely on medical percentages

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680, which provides for a 40% addition for future prospects for self-employed or fixed-salary individuals below the age of 40

K.S. Muralidhar v. R. Subbulakshmi (2024) SCC Online SC 3385, which emphasizes that compensation for "pain and suffering" must reflect the subjective, life-altering nature of the disability and the "permanent rupture" in the victim’s well-being

The Court observed that while there was no formal proof of the appellant's employment as a lift mechanic, his youth (21 years) and the severity of his 88% limb disability—described by medical experts as rendering the limb nearly non-functional—required a higher assessment of functional disability

Applying Raj Kumar, the Court determined that his capacity to perform manual labor was significantly more compromised than the 50% assessed by the Tribunal, enhancing it to 70%

The Court further corrected the Tribunal’s omission of future prospects, awarding a 40% addition as per the Pranay Sethi mandate for a 21-year-old claimant

The Court evaluated the non-pecuniary losses under the lens of K.S. Muralidhar, finding the previous awards "highly depressed" and increasing the amounts for "pain and suffering" and "loss of amenities" to Rs. 1,50,000 each to meaningfully reflect the appellant's lifelong physical and emotional deprivation

It held that the functional disability must be pegged at 70% and future prospects at 40%

The Court directed the Insurance Company to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs. 9,07,835 with 12% interest per annum from the date of filing within four weeks

Specific directions were issued for the release of Rs. 2,00,000 to the appellant, with the remainder to be secured in successive monthly Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) of Rs. 15,000 each to ensure sustained financial support