Functional disability must reflect vocational impact, not merely the certified percentage of physical impairment.

On 28 November 2017, Ambrish Kumar Singh and his wife, Suman Singh, were travelling on a motorcycle when their motorcycle was hit by another motorcycle allegedly driven rashly and negligently by Shital Singh. Ambrish sustained grievous injuries, while Suman died in the accident.

Separate claim petitions were filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Saket Courts, Delhi, concerning Ambrish’s injuries and Suman’s death.

In relation to Ambrish’s injuries, the Tribunal awarded ₹10,03,690 with interest at 7.5% per annum but did not grant compensation for loss of future income, holding that the disability certificate could not be correlated with the injuries recorded in the medical documents.

In relation to Suman’s death, the Tribunal awarded compensation on the basis of a monthly income of ₹25,000, allegedly earned through a tiffin-service business.

Whether Ambrish Kumar Singh’s functional disability should be assessed for the purpose of computing loss of future earning capacity, and if so, at what percentage?

Whether compensation for loss of future income, loss of amenities, pain and suffering, and wheelchair expenses was payable to Ambrish in light of his permanent disability and functional limitations?

Whether Suman Singh’s monthly income could be assessed at ₹25,000 on the basis of oral evidence regarding her tiffin-service business, despite the absence of documentary proof?

Whether an additional amount of ₹30,000 per month was payable towards loss of domestic care on the basis that Suman was a homemaker, in addition to any income from her alleged business?

The Court applied the principles in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343, that functional disability must be assessed rationally by considering the nature of the permanent physical disability, the claimant’s occupation, and its effect on his earning capacity and future vocation.

In the death claim, the Court relied on Shishu Pal v. Surjeet, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1114, which recognises a composite monthly amount of ₹30,000 towards loss of domestic care in appropriate cases involving a homemaker, while permitting an additional assessment where the homemaker’s income from employment or business is independently proved.

The Court also considered the principles concerning future prospects and conventional heads of compensation reflected in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, although it declined to grant a separate amount for loss of domestic care on the evidence available.

For Ambrish, the Court accepted the disability-board doctor’s unchallenged evidence that the 61% permanent physical impairment of the left upper and lower limbs was directly caused by the accident.

Applying Raj Kumar, the Court distinguished permanent physical disability from functional disability and considered the practical consequences of the impairment: Ambrish required assistance for walking and standing, could not use an Indian-style washroom without difficulty, and would be unable to drive either a two-wheeler or a four-wheeler.

Since these limitations substantially reduced his employment and livelihood prospects, the Court assessed functional disability at 80%, rather than 61% or 100%.

On that basis, it calculated loss of future earning capacity using monthly income of ₹20,000, 10% future prospects and a multiplier of 9, resulting in ₹19,00,800.

For Suman, the Court held that the evidence was insufficient to establish a monthly business income of ₹25,000 from the tiffin service.

Nevertheless, to ensure just and reasonable compensation, the Court treated ₹30,000 per month as her notional income.

It declined to add a further ₹30,000 for loss of domestic care because the factual conditions and evidentiary foundation for such an additional award were not sufficiently established in the case.

The enhanced amount, together with interest, was directed to be deposited before the Tribunal, and released to Ambrish in a lump sum in view of his circumstances and ability to manage the funds.

The Insurance Company’s appeal concerning Suman’s death claim was disposed of with the compensation recalculated at ₹47,17,400, reflecting an enhancement of ₹7,31,250 over the amount recorded by the Court as the Tribunal’s award.

The enhanced amount was directed to be deposited with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. ₹2,00,000 was to be released to the claimants, while the balance was to be placed in staggered fixed deposits of ₹25,000 each, with interest credited to the claimants’ savings account.

The appeals and pending applications were accordingly disposed of.