Functional disability must reflect actual earning incapacity, not merely assessed physical disability.

The claimant was riding a Hero Honda motorcycle from Tana to Chogath with his wife as pillion rider when a tractor travelling from the opposite direction collided head-on with the motorcycle near the Sihor ST Bus Stand on the Bhavnagar–Rajkot Highway.

The claimant suffered severe head injuries, including haemorrhagic brain contusions, and was subsequently certified as suffering from grave and permanent neurological disability.

An FIR and charge-sheet were filed against the tractor driver. The claimant instituted MACP No. 921 of 2007.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.7,96,600/- with interest at 7.5% per annum, but attributed 30% contributory negligence to the claimant and assessed his disability without treating it as complete functional disability.

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in attributing 30% contributory negligence to the claimant merely because the accident was a head-on collision, despite the FIR and charge-sheet against the tractor driver and the absence of rebuttal evidence from him?

2. Whether the claimant’s functional disability and consequent loss of earning capacity ought to have been assessed at 100%, rather than being confined to the medically assessed physical disability, and whether compensation for future prospects and other non-pecuniary heads was payable?

The Court applied the principle that a charge-sheet creates a prima facie case of negligence in motor accident claims, while criminal acquittal does not displace civil liability, and post-impact vehicle positions cannot by themselves establish contributory negligence; these principles were drawn from Reena v. Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, 2026 INSC 889.

It also relied on Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2018) 5 SCC 656, holding that a charge-sheet indicates prima facie involvement and negligence of the offending driver.

It also relied on ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajani Sahoo, (2025) 2 SCC 599, recognising FIRs and charge-sheets as valid and reliable prima facie material in MACT proceedings.

On disability, the Court followed M. Paramesh v. VRL Logistics Ltd., 2026 INSC 655, that economic loss cannot be restricted mechanically to the percentage of physical disability and that functional disability must be assessed with reference to the claimant’s actual capacity to undertake gainful employment.

The Tribunal’s finding of 30% contributory negligence was based only on the head-on nature of the collision and did not properly consider the FIR and charge-sheet implicating the tractor driver.

Since the driver did not enter the witness box and no rebuttal evidence was produced, the prima facie case against him remained unrebutted; therefore, the claimant could not be held contributorily negligent.

Regarding disability, the evidence of the treating neurologist established that the claimant was unable to walk, feed himself, use the toilet independently, or control urination, and suffered tremors and serious neurological impairment.

In light of these limitations, the Court held that the claimant could not undertake any economic activity and assessed his functional disability at 100%, applying the multiplier of 17 for his accepted age of 26 years.

The Court recalculated compensation by awarding Rs.8,56,800/- for future loss of income, Rs.1,00,000/- for pain, shock and suffering, Rs.1,65,000/- for medical expenses, Rs.60,000/- towards special diet, attendant charges, transportation and prosthetic leg, and Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of amenities.

The Court reversed the Tribunal’s finding attributing 30% contributory negligence to the claimant.

Total compensation was assessed at Rs.12,81,800/-, resulting in an enhanced amount of Rs.4,85,800/- over the amount treated as already awarded, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization.

The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the enhanced amount within 12 weeks before the concerned Tribunal.

The Tribunal was directed to disburse the awarded amount to the claimant after verification and compliance with applicable procedure, subject to deduction of unpaid court fees.