Functional disability must account for vocational requirements; masons qualify for skilled worker minimum wages.

The appellant, a 49-year-old individual, sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident on January 31, 2017

The medical evidence established a "Malunited Fracture Proximal Right Tibia and Fibula," resulting in a certified 48% permanent disability in the right lower limb

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded a total compensation of Rs. 8,20,000, calculating loss of income based on the minimum wages of an unskilled worker (Rs. 9,724/-) and assessing functional disability at 24%

The appellant preferred this appeal seeking enhancement, contending that he was a skilled mason earning Rs. 16,000–17,000 per month and that his functional disability was significantly higher given the physical nature of his vocation

1. Whether the minimum wages for compensation should be calculated based on a skilled worker (mason) rather than an unskilled worker

2. Whether the assessment of functional disability at 24% was appropriate considering the claimant’s vocation and the 48% permanent limb disability

3. Whether the compensation awarded under non-pecuniary heads was adequate

The court applied the principles of just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

It established that where a claimant’s testimony regarding their vocation remains unrebutted, the court may accept the stated profession for wage determination

It followed the precedent in Neelam Devi & Ors v. Bikramjeet Singh & Ors. (2014:DHC:1172), which held that in the absence of documentary evidence of income, a mason is entitled to the minimum wages of a skilled worker

Further, the court applied the principle that functional disability must be assessed relative to the claimant's specific trade and the impact of the physical impairment on their ability to perform that trade

The Court observed that the appellant’s deposition as a mason was consistent and not rebutted by the Insurance Company during cross-examination

Given that masonry requires physical activities like squatting, climbing, and mobility across sites, the Court held that a 48% disability in the right lower limb would severely erode the earning capacity of a 49-year-old worker

The Court found the MACT’s assessment of 24% functional disability to be inapposite for such a vocation and revised it to 40%

The Court determined that the minimum wage for a skilled worker (Rs. 11,830/-) was the correct benchmark

Regarding non-pecuniary damages, the Court found the previous awards for pain, suffering, and loss of amenities to be insufficient and enhanced them to reflect the claimant's actual hardship

The Court ordered the Insurance Company to deposit the enhanced amount along with 9% interest per annum within four weeks

The Court clarified that the Insurance Company’s right of recovery granted by the MACT would remain unaffected

All pending applications were disposed of, and the statutory deposit was ordered to be refunded to the appellant