Inability to resume one’s occupation after limb loss supports compensation for functional disability.

On 1 February 2023, a tractor insured by the appellant collided with the first respondent’s motorcycle, causing grievous injuries, including loss of his right leg.

The claimant, who had worked as a mechanic, sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Tribunal awarded ₹48,53,702 with 7.5% annual interest and directed the insurer to pay and recover the amount from the second respondent.

The insurer appealed, challenging the assessment of disability and the amounts awarded under other heads.

1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in treating the claimant’s disability as functional disability and awarding ₹29,16,000 under that head.

2. Whether the compensation awarded under the other heads was excessive and required appellate interference.

The claim was brought under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the appeal under Section 173 of that Act.

The Court applied the principle that compensation for disability must be assessed in light of its functional effect on the claimant’s ability to perform the work he did before the accident.

No precedent or more detailed statutory test was cited in the judgment.

Although the insurer argued that there was no documentary proof of income or earning capacity and that the disability award was excessive, the Court noted that the claimant had lost his right leg and could no longer perform his pre-accident mechanic work.

It therefore upheld the Tribunal’s treatment of the disability as functional and found the compensation under that and the other heads just and reasonable.

The Court found no basis to interfere with the award.

The insurer was directed to deposit the award with 7.5% annual interest from the date of the claim petition, together with costs and after crediting any amount already deposited, within four weeks.

The Tribunal was directed to transfer the amount to the claimant by RTGS within two weeks of deposit.

The insurer retained liberty to recover the compensation from the second respondent, as ordered by the Tribunal; there was no order as to costs.