Functional disability must reflect the claimant’s vocation and earning impact, not physical disability alone.

The appellant, an injured claimant working as an electrician, sustained serious injuries in a motor accident on 21 February 2017, including fractures of both bones of the right leg, nerve palsy, shortening and deformity of the limb.

He underwent multiple surgeries and hospital admissions, and his treatment continued for approximately three years.

The disability certificate assessed permanent physical disability at 55% in the right lower limb.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala House Courts, assessed his functional disability at 30% and awarded loss of income for only six months on the basis of minimum wages applicable to a skilled worker.

By award dated 28 November 2024, the Tribunal granted total compensation of Rs.12,68,343/- with interest at 7.5% per annum.

The claimant appealed seeking enhancement on the grounds of functional disability and the period for which loss of income was assessed.

Whether the claimant’s functional disability ought to be assessed at a percentage higher than the 30% assessed by the Tribunal, having regard to his 55% permanent disability in the right lower limb and his vocation as an electrician?

Whether compensation for loss of income should be awarded for three years instead of the six months granted by the Tribunal, considering the claimant’s prolonged treatment and inability to resume his vocation?

The Court applied the principle in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr., (2011) 1 SCC 343, that physical disability cannot be mechanically equated with loss of earning capacity; functional disability must be assessed with reference to the claimant’s occupation and the effect of the injury on that occupation.

Relying on M. Paramesh v. VRL Logistics Ltd. & Anr., 2026 INSC 655, the Court reiterated that functional disability may be higher than physical disability, even up to 100%, where the injury substantially impairs the claimant’s ability to perform his livelihood-related manual work.

The Court also relied on Devender Mehto v. Sh. Santosh Gupta & Ors., 2026:DHC:5428, where functional disability was enhanced for a labourer in light of the nature of his vocation.

Loss of income is to be assessed for the period during which the claimant remained unable to resume work, based on the applicable income or minimum wages proved on record.

The Court found that the claimant’s vocation as an electrician had been accepted by the Tribunal on the basis of his testimony and the police statement forming part of the charge-sheet, despite the absence of documentary proof of vocation.

Given that electrical work requires mobility, standing and use of the legs, the claimant’s 55% right-lower-limb disability had a greater effect on his earning capacity than the Tribunal’s assessment of 30% functional disability recognised.

Applying Raj Kumar and M. Paramesh, the Court therefore assessed functional disability at 50%.

The medical evidence showed repeated admissions, multiple surgeries, continuing treatment up to September 2019 and an additional estimated recovery period of two to three months.

Since there was no effective cross-examination establishing that a separate accident caused the prolonged treatment, the Court accepted that the claimant remained unable to resume his vocation for three years.

Loss of income was consequently recalculated for 36 months at the skilled-worker minimum wage of Rs.11,830/- per month, while future earnings were recalculated using 25% future prospects, a multiplier of 14 and 50% functional disability.

The enhanced amount was directed to be deposited before the MACT within six weeks, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.

A lump sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was directed to be released to the claimant within two weeks thereafter, while the balance enhanced amount with accrued interest was to be placed in successive fixed deposits of Rs.25,000/- each.

The original award and its directions concerning release of the previously awarded amount were left undisturbed, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.