Functional disability must account for mobility impairments even where the claimant performs sedentary work.

On 9 April 2017, Santosh Kumar was travelling as a passenger in an autorickshaw when it was hit by a negligently driven Tata Safari bearing registration no. HR-51A-H-7086. He sustained grievous injuries, including a permanent disability assessed at 40% in relation to his right lower limb, shortening of the limb by three centimetres, and malunion around the right knee joint

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South-East District, Saket Courts, awarded compensation of ₹5,66,569 with interest at 9% per annum by award dated 6 May 2024 in MACT No. 1009/2017

The Tribunal assessed the claimant’s functional disability at 10%, adopted monthly income of ₹8,889 based on minimum wages for a skilled worker in Uttar Pradesh, and declined future prospects

In appeal, the claimant sought enhancement on the grounds that his functional disability, income, future prospects, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, attendant charges, special diet, and conveyance expenses had been inadequately assessed. He asserted that he was a tutor running a coaching centre and earning ₹45,000–₹50,000 per month, but no documentary proof of his qualifications or earnings was produced

Whether the claimant’s monthly income was correctly assessed on the basis of minimum wages, and whether the applicable minimum wage required correction?

Whether the claimant was entitled to future prospects despite the absence of proof of his actual earnings?

Whether the claimant’s functional disability should be assessed at 10% or at a higher percentage in light of his 40% permanent disability in the right lower limb and his occupation as a tutor/coaching-centre operator?

Whether the compensation awarded under the heads of pain and suffering, mental and physical shock, and loss of amenities was inadequate?

The Court applied the principles governing assessment of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, including the requirement that loss of future earning capacity be assessed by considering the claimant’s occupation and the impact of the injury on his actual earning ability.

Relying on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, the Court held that a self-employed or salaried claimant below 40 years of age is ordinarily entitled to 40% addition towards future prospects

Relying on Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343, the Court applied the distinction between physical/permanent disability and functional disability, requiring consideration of the claimant’s vocation, the functional consequences of the injury, and his ability to earn a livelihood after the accident

In the absence of reliable documentary proof of actual earnings or educational qualifications, minimum wages could be adopted as the basis for computation of income

The Court upheld the Tribunal’s use of minimum wages because the claimant had not produced documentary evidence of his alleged income, M.A. and B.Ed. qualifications, or earnings from the coaching centre. However, it corrected the applicable minimum wage from ₹8,889 to ₹9,119 per month

Since the claimant was 33 years old at the time of the accident, the Court added 40% towards future prospects in accordance with Pranay Sethi

Applying Raj Kumar, the Court held that the claimant’s 40% disability in the right lower limb could not be mechanically reduced to 10% functional disability merely because he operated a coaching centre. The shortening of the limb, malunion around the knee, and resulting mobility impairment affected not only physical labour but also the claimant’s ability to move about and sustain his livelihood. The Court therefore assessed functional disability at 20%

It further found the amounts awarded for pain and suffering, mental and physical shock, and loss of amenities to be inadequate and enhanced them to ₹50,000 collectively and ₹25,000 respectively

On this basis, the total compensation was recalculated at ₹9,22,763

The enhanced amount was directed to be deposited before the Tribunal within four weeks. ₹1,00,000 was to be released to the claimant within two weeks thereafter, while the balance was to be placed in staggered fixed deposits of ₹25,000 each, with accrued interest credited to the claimant’s savings account

The appeal and pending applications were disposed of accordingly