Functional disability must reflect the claimant’s occupation and its impact on earning capacity.

On 11 December 2017, the appellant was injured while riding as a pillion passenger when the respondent-owner’s car collided with the two-wheeler on which he was travelling. He sustained fractures to both bones of his left leg and underwent surgery.

The Tribunal assessed whole-body disability at 10%, used a monthly notional income of Rs.9,000, and awarded Rs.3,29,534 with 6% interest. The claimant appealed, seeking enhancement on the grounds that the income and functional disability had been assessed too low.

1. Whether the Tribunal had correctly assessed the claimant’s monthly income for calculating loss of future earnings.

2. Whether the claimant’s functional disability and consequent loss of future earning capacity warranted reassessment, and whether the compensation under other heads should be enhanced.

Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for an appeal against a Tribunal’s award; the claim arose under Section 166 of that Act.

Under Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343, medical disability is not automatically equivalent to loss of earning capacity: the Tribunal must assess the practical effect of permanent disability on the claimant’s work and earning capacity, considering the person’s occupation and the evidence as a whole.

The resulting percentage loss of earning capacity is quantified using the multiplier method.

The Court accepted Rs.11,000 as the appropriate monthly notional income for 2017, a figure the insurer did not dispute.

Although the doctor assessed whole-body disability at 10.06%, the Court considered the functional effect of the injury in light of the claimant’s work as a waiter—which required prolonged standing—and his battery-fitting work, which involved lifting batteries. The medical evidence recorded continuing pain and difficulty standing even after treatment and follow-up.

Applying Raj Kumar, the Court assessed functional disability at 25%, rather than treating the medical percentage as determinative, and calculated future earnings loss as Rs.11,000 × 12 × 16 × 25% = Rs.5,28,000.

It also enhanced compensation for pain and suffering and conveyance, nourishment and nutritious food, and added awards for laid-up-period income loss and loss of amenities.

The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced amount with interest within eight weeks; the remaining parts of the Tribunal’s award were left undisturbed, and no order as to costs was made.