Mason’s functional disability assessed at 100% for above-knee amputation despite lower physical disability certification.

On April 18, 2017, the appellant, a 30-year-old mason, was hit by a rashly driven lorry while cycling.

The accident resulted in the amputation of his right leg above the knee.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded Rs. 10,84,330, assessing his monthly income at Rs. 6,000 and disability at 70%.

The High Court of Madras subsequently enhanced the award to Rs. 23,86,320 by increasing the monthly income to Rs. 12,000.

However, the High Court calculated future prospects based on the Tribunal’s lower income figure and omitted certain conventional heads in its final tally.

The appellant moved the Supreme Court seeking further enhancement.

1. Whether the physical disability of 70% must be equated to functional disability/loss of earning capacity given the appellant’s occupation as a mason.

2. Whether the High Court erred in its mathematical computation of future prospects and the omission of existing heads of compensation.

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, concerning compensation for motor accidents.

The precedent set in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Another (2011), which distinguishes between physical disability and functional disability.

The core doctrine established is that the "loss of earning capacity" is not always equal to the "percentage of permanent disability"; instead, it must be assessed based on the impact of the injury on the specific avocation of the claimant.

The Court observed that while the medical certificate assessed physical disability at 70%, the functional impact on a mason—a manual laborer requiring the use of both legs—is total.

Applying the Raj Kumar principle, the Court held that the amputation rendered the appellant 100% disabled from pursuing his sole trade.

The Court identified "inadvertent" clerical errors in the High Court’s judgment: first, the High Court applied 40% future prospects to the Tribunal’s income assessment (Rs. 6,000) rather than its own enhanced assessment (Rs. 12,000).

The Court found it omitted awarded amounts for nutrition, clothing, and medical expenses in its final total calculation.

The Court also found the allowance for future medical expenses (prosthesis) inadequate given the need for lifelong replacement.

It held that the compensation must be recalculated to include 40% future prospects on the revised income and 100% loss of earning capacity.

The Court enhanced the total compensation from the High Court’s (incorrectly totaled) Rs. 23,86,320 to Rs. 40,29,730 and further increased the award for future medical expenses to Rs. 2,00,000.

The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the enhanced amount within six weeks with 7.5% interest.