Functional disability for limb amputation must be assessed via nature of vocation over speculative earning capacity.

On August 6, 2016, Sanjay Kumar Jain (the claimant) was riding his scooter when he was hit from behind by a UPSRTC bus driven in a rash and negligent manner

The accident resulted in the amputation of the claimant's right arm below the elbow, leading to a certified 70% permanent disability of the upper right limb

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded Rs. 16,13,032 with 9% interest, assessing functional disability at only 20%

UPSRTC appealed seeking a reduction in compensation, while the claimant appealed seeking enhancement, specifically regarding functional disability and the cost of a prosthetic limb

1. Whether the MACT erred in assessing the functional disability at 20% despite 70% permanent physical impairment

2. Whether the compensation awarded for the prosthetic limb and future prospects was adequate

The court applied the "Triple Test" for assessing functional disability from Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343, which requires evaluating the nature of vocation and the claimant's ability to engage in other pursuits

Regarding future prospects, the court followed National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680, which mandates a 25% addition for self-employed individuals aged 40-50

For prosthetic maintenance, the court relied on Mohd. Sabeer v. U.P. SRTC (2023) 20 SCC 774, establishing that compensation must cover multiple replacements and maintenance based on life expectancy

The Court found the MACT’s assessment of 20% functional disability to be "purely speculative and pedantic," noting that the Tribunal unfairly expected the claimant to engage in other business without evidence of his capacity to do so after losing his right arm

Applying the Raj Kumar principles, the Court determined that the amputation of a dominant arm for a businessman dealing in truck spare parts grossly impeded his livelihood, justifying an increase in functional disability to 35%

Regarding the prosthetic limb, the Court observed that the claimant would require at least two more replacements until the age of 70. Consequently, it increased the lump sum from Rs. 4,00,000 to a reimbursement-based fund of Rs. 10,00,000 to account for inflation and maintenance

Future prospects were adjusted to 25% to align with Pranay Sethi

The Court directed UPSRTC to deposit an additional Rs. 7,89,922 with 9% interest. Furthermore, UPSRTC was ordered to deposit Rs. 10,00,000 into a separate account for the prosthetic limb, to be released to the claimant upon submission of actual bills/invoices, without interest