Medical testimony by a forensic specialist is valid for assessing permanent disability under the Motor Vehicles Act.

The Appellant, a 24-year-old student and part-time Bill Collector, sustained a crush injury to his right foot on 21.06.2015 when his motorcycle collided with another motorcycle at a junction on Kanakapura main road.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Bengaluru, awarded a total compensation of Rs. 2,47,771/- but deducted 50% (amounting to an award of Rs. 1,23,885/-) on the grounds of contributory negligence, as the impact occurred at the center of a junction.

The Appellant challenged the award seeking enhancement of compensation and the setting aside of the 50% negligence deduction.

Whether the Appellant is entitled to enhanced compensation?

Whether the Appellant was liable for deduction on account of contributory negligence?

The Court applied Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, regarding appeals.

It relied on the principles for assessing "loss of future earning capacity" established in *Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Another (2011) 1 SCC 343*, which mandate investigating the nature of the claimant’s vocation and the specific impact of the physical disability on their ability to perform that work.

The Court further clarified that under Section 4(1)(c)(ii) of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, a "qualified medical practitioner" authorized to assess disability is not restricted to a specialist (e.g., an Orthopedic Surgeon) but includes any MD qualified to assess medical impairment.

The Court rejected the Tribunal’s reduction of the whole-body disability from 15% to 7%.

It noted that PW.2, a Medico-Legal Consultant, was part of the treating team and competent to assess impairment despite not being an Orthopedic Surgeon.

Given the Appellant's role as a Bill Collector, the 15% disability in the right lower limb significantly hindered the agility required for his vocation.

Regarding income, in the absence of authenticated salary proof (Ex.P10), the Court discarded the claimed Rs. 20,000/month and the Tribunal’s Rs. 7,000/month, fixing a notional income of Rs. 9,000/month.

Finally, the Court upheld the 50% contributory negligence finding, as the IMV report and site map (Ex.P3, P5, P7) confirmed a head-on collision at the center of a junction, implying both riders failed to exercise "utmost care and caution".

The Court enhanced the total compensation to Rs. 4,23,211/- (derived from 15% disability, Rs. 9,000 notional income, and a multiplier of 17).

After applying the 50% contributory negligence deduction to the updated total, the Insurance Company was directed to deposit the enhanced amount with 7.5% interest p.a. within eight weeks.