Functional disability must be assessed based on professional occupation rather than mechanical medical percentages.

The Appellant (original claimant), a professional driver, sustained multiple grievous injuries, including four fractures (right knee/patella, radius, and facial bones) and underwent five surgeries following a motor vehicle accident on June 22, 2005, while driving a Bolero Jeep.

The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (MACT), Bhavnagar, in MACP No. 821 of 2005, awarded Rs. 2,21,500/- by treating the claimant’s income as Rs. 2,500/- (minimum wages) and permanent disability as 30% based on a joint pursis.

The claimant appealed for enhancement, asserting a monthly income of Rs. 11,500/- and higher functional disability.

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in determining the monthly income of a skilled driver based on minimum wages despite oral evidence of higher earnings.

2. Whether the Tribunal failed to assess "functional disability" and loss of earning capacity by mechanically adopting a 30% disability consensus despite medical evidence suggesting higher impairment.

The court applied Section 166 and 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, emphasizing the "just compensation" principle.

The Court relied on Manusha Sreekumar v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [AIR 2022 SC 840] regarding notional income for skilled drivers.

Ramchandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [AIR 2011 SC 2951] regarding the acceptance of stated income for laborers in the absence of contrary evidence.

Sarla Verma v. DTC [(2009) 6 SCC 121] for multipliers and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680] for prospective income/future prospects.

Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar [(2011) 1 SCC 343] for the distinction between medical permanent disability and functional disability.

The Court found the Tribunal’s reliance on minimum wages (Rs. 2,500/-) too restrictive given the claimant’s 10 years of driving experience and unchallenged testimony of higher earnings; it fixed the monthly income at a more realistic Rs. 8,000/-.

The Court further determined that the Tribunal ignored its duty to assess "functional disability." Although parties agreed to 30% disability via a pursis, the Court held that for a driver with a severely damaged right knee (impacting muscular strength and pedal operation), the functional loss was higher, assessing it at 40%.

The Court added 10% for future prospects as the claimant was aged 50 and redetermined the multiplier as 11.

Non-pecuniary damages for pain and suffering were increased from Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- due to the five surgeries and prolonged treatment.

The Court held that the claimant reached the threshold for a "skilled worker" and that functional disability must be assessed relative to the victim's vocation.

Respondents No. 3 and 4 were directed to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs. 4,47,140/- with 9% interest per annum from the date of the claim petition until realization.