Functional disability must be assessed based on the impact of permanent injuries on the claimant’s specific avocation.

On August 29, 2016, Petitioner No. 1 (rider) and Petitioner No. 2 (pillion) were on a motorcycle when they were hit by a rashly driven private bus.

Both sustained multiple fractures and underwent surgeries involving long-term hospitalization.

Both were employed as masons/coolies.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded compensation by calculating loss of future income by taking only 1/3rd of the whole-body disability assessed by the doctor.

The Appellants/Claimants challenged the common judgment seeking enhancement of compensation, arguing the functional disability for manual laborers should be higher.

1. Whether the compensation awarded under the head of 'loss of future income due to disability' was calculated in accordance with law or requires interference based on the functional disability of the claimants.

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, regarding claim petitions for compensation.

The Court relied extensively on the principles established in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Another (2011) 1 SCC 343, which distinguishes between permanent physical disability and the resulting "loss of earning capacity" (functional disability), mandating that Tribunals assess how an injury specifically impacts a claimant’s ability to perform their particular avocation.

The Court also referenced Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. regarding the use of notional income charts for manual laborers.

The Court observed that the Tribunal erred by mechanically reducing the medical disability to 1/3rd to arrive at the whole-body disability without considering the claimants' profession.

Applying Raj Kumar, the Court held that since both claimants were masons (manual laborers), injuries to their dominant right limbs significantly destroyed their earning capacity.

For Petitioner No. 1, despite 41% whole-body medical disability, the Court assessed functional disability at 75% because his arm was "dangling," making manual labor impossible.

For Petitioner No. 2, the Court assessed functional disability at 50%, noting that while he couldn't perform construction work, he might perform other lesser physical tasks.

The Court also updated the notional monthly income to ₹9,500 in accordance with the 2016 Karnataka State Legal Services Authority chart.

The High Court modified the award as follows: Petitioner No. 1’s compensation was enhanced from ₹7,03,931 to ₹16,55,031.

Petitioner No. 2’s compensation was enhanced from ₹4,32,250 to ₹11,79,310.

Both amounts carry interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition.

The Respondent/Insurance Company was directed to deposit the enhanced amount within eight weeks.