Functional disability may be 100% where injuries eliminate earning capacity in the claimant’s specific occupation.

On 15 September 2015, a car driven by the claimant, Kannan, collided head-on with a Bolero truck. Kannan alleged that the truck driver had overtaken another vehicle, crossed onto the wrong side of the road and caused the collision; he sustained injuries and fractures.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Madurantakam, awarded compensation of ₹1,48,73,838, but attributed 50% contributory negligence to Kannan and awarded him ₹74,37,000.

The insurer appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging both the apportionment of liability and the Tribunal’s use of the multiplier method on the basis of 100% functional disability.

1. Whether the Tribunal’s finding of 50% contributory negligence on the claimant, and the corresponding apportionment of liability, warranted appellate interference.

2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in treating the claimant as having 100% functional disability and applying the multiplier method to assess loss of earning capacity.

Under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, an aggrieved party may appeal against an award of a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

Negligence in motor accident claims is determined on a preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Under Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, 2011 (1) SCC 343, medical disability does not automatically correspond to loss of earning capacity; the Tribunal must assess the injury’s functional and economic impact on the claimant’s particular work.

On liability, the Court noted that the claimant presented two witnesses in support of his account, while the insurer did not examine the truck driver or an independent eyewitness to rebut it. It held that the fact of a head-on collision did not, by itself, establish that only one party was at fault, and upheld the Tribunal’s 50:50 apportionment as a practical assessment supported by the evidence.

On quantum, the Court accepted the distinction between medical disability and loss of earning capacity under Raj Kumar, but found that the disability certificate and the claimant’s dismissal letter showed that his injuries had eliminated his ability to perform his specific vocational duties. It therefore upheld the finding of 100% functional disability in relation to his work and the use of the multiplier method.

It dismissed the appeal and confirmed the award, directing the insurer to deposit the amount awarded by the Tribunal, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition and costs, less any amount already deposited, within six weeks. The Tribunal was directed to transfer the deposited amount to the claimant by RTGS within two weeks thereafter. No costs were awarded in the appeal, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.