Physical disability percentage cannot automatically determine loss of earning capacity; functional disability must be independently assessed.

On 19 June 2017, the appellant, Suraj Kumar Dhruw, was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle when a tractor bearing registration No. CG 10 D 0358, allegedly driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 1, collided with the motorcycle near Lachanpur.

The motorcycle rider, Ramji Yadav, subsequently died from his injuries, while the appellant sustained grievous injuries, including a fracture to his leg.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mungeli, found the tractor driver negligent, rejected contributory negligence, and held that there was no breach of the insurance policy.

It awarded the appellant ₹6,34,254 as compensation under various heads by award dated 7 January 2022 in Claim Case No. 56 of 2019.

The appellant filed the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement, principally contending that his income and functional disability had been assessed too low and that no amount had been awarded for special diet.

Whether the Tribunal had correctly assessed the appellant’s functional disability and corresponding loss of future earning capacity, despite the disability certificate recording 90% disability?

Whether the monthly income of the injured claimant had been assessed correctly in the absence of documentary proof of income?

Whether the appellant was entitled to an additional amount under the head of special diet or nutritious food?

Whether the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal required enhancement?

The Court applied Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, governing appeals against awards of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

Under Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343, the percentage of physical or medical disability cannot automatically be treated as the percentage of loss of earning capacity; functional disability must be assessed with reference to its impact on the claimant’s earning capacity.

The Court relied on Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121, for the appropriate multiplier based on the claimant’s age, and on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, for addition of future prospects to income.

In the absence of documentary evidence, income may be assessed on the basis of applicable minimum wages and prevailing market rates.

Compensation must also include reasonable amounts for necessary accident-related heads, including special diet or nutritious food where warranted by the injuries and treatment.

The Court accepted the Tribunal’s finding that the accident resulted from the tractor driver’s rash and negligent driving and that the claimant had not contributed to the accident.

Although the disability certificate recorded 90% disability and was proved by the examining doctor, the Court held, applying Raj Kumar, that medical disability did not automatically establish an equivalent loss of earning capacity.

It therefore upheld the Tribunal’s assessment of 50% functional disability.

However, the Tribunal’s adoption of ₹3,000 per month as income for an unskilled labourer was considered unduly low.

In the absence of documentary proof supporting the claimant’s asserted income of ₹15,000 per month as a head mason, the Court assessed his income at ₹7,930 per month, corresponding to the applicable minimum wage for an unskilled worker.

Applying 40% future prospects and the multiplier of 18 applicable to the claimant’s age of 22 years, the Court calculated the loss of future earning capacity at ₹11,99,016.

It retained the amounts awarded for medical expenses, pain and suffering, attendant charges, transportation, and future treatment.

Since no amount had been granted for special diet, it awarded ₹10,000 under that head.

The Court enhanced the total compensation from ₹6,34,254 to ₹13,89,670, comprising ₹11,99,016 for loss of future income, ₹1,10,654 for treatment expenses, ₹20,000 for pain and suffering, ₹20,000 for attendant charges, ₹10,000 for transportation, ₹20,000 for future treatment, and ₹10,000 for special diet.

After deducting the amount already awarded, the appellant was held entitled to an additional ₹7,55,416, carrying interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application until realization.

The remaining terms of the Tribunal’s award were left undisturbed.