Functional disability must reflect the claimant’s occupation, not merely medical impairment percentages.

The appellant was injured when a lorry allegedly driven rashly and negligently struck his motorcycle on 18 April 2021.

He sustained injuries to his right lower limb, underwent surgery, and claimed that the resulting disability reduced his earning capacity.

The MACT awarded him Rs.5,26,000, including Rs.1,19,700 for loss of future income, assessing monthly income at Rs.14,250 and whole-body disability at 10%.

In his appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the appellant challenged the assessment of disability and income.

He relied on medical evidence assessing whole-body disability at 27.2%, and asserted that he worked as a Registered Medical Practitioner (RMP).

1. Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of the appellant’s whole-body and functional disability at 10% should be interfered with, having regard to the medical evidence and the demands of his occupation.

2. Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of the appellant’s monthly income at Rs.14,250 should be revised in the absence of documentary proof of income.

3. Whether the appellant was entitled to enhancement of compensation.

Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act provides the basis for an appeal against a MACT award.

The Court applied the Central Government’s disability-assessment guidelines published in the Gazette on 13 June 2001, including their methodology for assessing impairment and their recognition of coordinated activities performed using the lower limb.

The Court distinguished medical or physical impairment from functional disability: compensation for loss of earning capacity requires the Court to consider the effect of the disability on the claimant’s occupation and duties, not merely the medical percentage.

The Court also applied the evidentiary principle stated in Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2002 SC 3652, that a party’s failure to challenge material testimony in cross-examination may support acceptance of that evidence.

The Court accepted the evidence of restricted knee movement, instability, difficulty squatting and sitting cross-legged, and walking with a stick; it found the medical assessment of 15% disability for restricted movement consistent with the guidelines.

Although the doctor assessed whole-body disability at 27.2%, the Court assessed it at 22% for compensation purposes, considering the evidence together with the functional demands of the appellant’s work, which involved travel and field visits.

It accepted that the appellant practised as an RMP, relying on his certificate and unchallenged testimony, but found the claimed Rs.35,000 monthly income unsupported by documentary evidence.

Given his training and work, it assessed monthly income at Rs.18,000.

Applying a multiplier of 7, it recalculated loss of future income as Rs.3,32,640; the other compensation heads remained unchanged.

The Court modified the award, increasing total compensation to Rs.7,38,500 and granting enhanced compensation of Rs.2,12,500, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition until realization.

The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the enhanced amount within six weeks of receiving the certified judgment.