Functional disability must be assessed by its impact on the worker’s avocation and earning capacity, not merely medical impairment.

The appellant, a professional driver employed by Respondent No. 1 to drive Eicher Truck No. MH-13/R-4737, sustained serious injuries in a truck accident on 28 February 2015 while driving pursuant to the owner’s instructions.

His injuries included fractures involving the right femur and lower end of the right humerus, requiring hospitalisation and surgical treatment.

He alleged continuing pain, restricted movement, difficulty in squatting, sitting cross-legged and kneeling, and inability to resume driving or undertake gainful employment.

He filed a claim under Section 10 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923. The owner remained ex parte, while the insurer disputed the claim on grounds including want of statutory notice, absence of a valid driving licence, disputed wages, territorial jurisdiction and the extent of compensation payable.

The Commissioner awarded Rs.1,86,000 with interest at 12% per annum from the date of accident until realisation.

The claimant appealed under Section 30(1) seeking enhancement of compensation.

Whether the Commissioner correctly assessed the appellant’s permanent physical impairment and loss of earning capacity arising from the non-scheduled orthopaedic injuries.

Whether the appellant’s disability had a greater functional impact on his earning capacity as a professional driver than the percentage of medical disability certified by the doctor.

Whether the compensation awarded by the Commissioner required enhancement under Section 4 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923.

The Court applied Section 4(1)(c)(ii) of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, under which compensation for non-scheduled injuries is proportionate to the permanent loss of earning capacity assessed by a qualified medical practitioner.

It relied on the Central Government’s Gazette guidelines dated 13 June 2001 for assessment of locomotor and orthopaedic disability, requiring assessment of restriction in the range of movement of the affected joint against the normal range, aggregation of impairment affecting the relevant joints, and division by three to assess impairment of an upper or lower limb.

The Court further applied the principle that medical or physical disability is not conclusive of functional disability; the effect of the injury must be assessed with reference to the claimant’s occupation and the duties attached to it.

Under Section 30(1), the High Court was empowered to examine the legal and evidentiary correctness of the Commissioner’s award.

The Court accepted the doctor’s assessment concerning restriction of movement in the appellant’s right hip and right elbow.

It held that the doctor’s assessment was consistent with the prescribed guidelines and was not rendered unreliable merely because he was not the treating doctor, particularly as the insurer did not effectively challenge the specific findings regarding restricted movement, pain and difficulty in coordinated activities.

The fact that the fractures had united did not negate permanent impairment, especially since the X-rays showed callus formation, retained fixation implants and arthritic changes in the right hip and elbow.

Although the medical assessment indicated approximately 18.33% permanent physical impairment, the Court held that the appellant’s occupation as a heavy-vehicle driver required coordinated and effective use of the right leg for operating the accelerator and brake and of the right upper limb for controlling the vehicle.

Accordingly, the functional impact on his driving capacity and earning ability was substantially higher than the purely medical percentage, and was reasonably assessed at 30%.

Applying a monthly income of Rs.8,000 and the undisputed relevant factor of 146.20, the Court calculated loss of future income at Rs.3,50,880, and added Rs.10,000 towards litigation costs.

The Court modified the Commissioner’s award and enhanced the compensation from Rs.1,86,000 to Rs.3,60,880, comprising Rs.3,50,880 towards loss of future income and Rs.10,000 towards litigation costs.

The enhanced amount was directed to carry interest at 12% per annum from the date of the accident until realisation.

Respondent No. 2, the insurer, was directed to deposit the compensation within six weeks from receipt of the certified copy of the judgment.