Future Prospects and Functional Disability Assessment for Field Workers in Motor Accident Claims

These are cross-appeals arising from a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) award dated 14th August 2014.

On 3rd January 2010, the claimant, Sunil Bajaj, was riding a scooter with his wife and child when an offending vehicle, driving at high speed while overtaking an auto, struck them near New Delhi Railway Station.

The claimant suffered fractures resulting in 35% permanent disability of the right lower limb.

The MACT awarded Rs. 10,74,773 with 9% interest.

The Insurance Company sought a reduction, while the claimant sought an enhancement of the compensation.

1. Whether future prospects should be granted at 40% based on the claimant’s age (29 years).

2. Whether the notional income of Rs. 11,000 per month assessed by the MACT was correct despite challenges by the insurer.

3. Whether the claimant was guilty of contributory negligence based on the site plan and head-on nature of the collision.

4. Whether the functional disability should be increased from 17.5% to 30% given the claimant’s vocation in field work.

The court applied the principles of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 to determine the appropriate percentage (40%) for future prospects for a victim under 40 years of age.

It further relied on Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343 to distinguish between physical permanent disability and functional disability (loss of earning capacity), emphasizing that the Tribunal must assess how the injury specifically restricts the claimant's particular vocation.

The court upheld the notional income of Rs. 11,000, citing the testimony of the employer (PW3) and the Salary Certificate (Ex. PW3/A).

Regarding contributory negligence, the Court perused the site plan and determined the collision occurred at a point indicating the claimant was on the correct side of a broad road; additionally, the insurer had failed to raise this plea in their original written statement.

On functional disability, the Court applied Raj Kumar (supra), reasoning that while the limb disability was 35%, the claimant's specific role as an "Office Assistant" involved "field work" which requires extensive mobility.

Since such injuries would make him lose his current job and struggle to find a new one, the Court increased the functional disability from 17.5% to 30%.

The total compensation was re-calculated from Rs. 10,74,773 to Rs. 14,28,203 (an enhancement of Rs. 3,53,430).

The Court directed the Insurance Company to deposit the enhanced amount with 9% interest within four weeks and ordered the release of the balance amounts held by the Registrar General to the claimant in a lump sum.