Permanent physical disability percentage alone does not establish functional loss of earning capacity.

The appellant, Sanjubai, was allegedly hit by a Honda scooter on 4 November 2014 while standing near St. Teresa School, Dhar. She sustained injuries, including a fracture of the right tibia, and underwent treatment at Bhoj Hospital and Patidar Hospital, including surgery.

She claimed medical expenses of ₹25,000, loss of income for three months, and that she had been earning ₹6,000 per month from cleaning and related work at the school before the accident.

The appellant filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking ₹7,25,000 in compensation.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded ₹31,500 as compensation and ₹1,210 towards litigation expenses, payable jointly and severally by the respondents.

The appellant preferred the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking enhancement of compensation by ₹1,00,000, principally relying on a disability certificate showing 33.92% permanent physical disability.

Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was just and reasonable in light of the appellant’s injuries, medical treatment, and alleged permanent disability?

Whether the appellant was entitled to enhanced compensation on the basis of the disability certificate recording 33.92% permanent physical disability and alleged loss of earning capacity?

The Court applied Sections 166 and 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, concerning claims for compensation arising from motor-vehicle accidents and appellate review of awards, respectively.

It applied the principle that compensation for permanent disability must be assessed with reference not merely to the percentage of medical or physical disability affecting a particular limb, but to the corresponding functional disability and its effect on the claimant’s earning capacity.

The Court further proceeded on the principle that compensation must be based on losses and expenses proved through the evidence on record, including medical expenses, treatment, temporary loss of income, pain and suffering, and other legally compensable heads.

The Court accepted that the appellant had suffered injuries and undergone treatment, but held that the evidence did not establish that the recorded 33.92% physical disability resulted in an equivalent permanent functional loss of earning capacity.

The disability certificate, by itself, was therefore insufficient to justify the claimed enhancement.

The Tribunal had considered the medical documents, treatment bills, X-ray reports, hospitalisation, pain and suffering, and temporary loss of income, and had awarded ₹31,500 on the basis of the losses proved before it.

Since the appellant failed to demonstrate a legally compensable permanent loss of future earning capacity or any other error in the Tribunal’s assessment, the Court found no ground for appellate interference.

The appeal seeking enhancement of compensation was dismissed, and the award dated 2 December 2021 was affirmed in its entirety.

The parties were directed to bear their own costs, and the record was ordered to be returned to the Tribunal for compliance.