Renewal of a driving licence alone does not establish a disabled claimant’s capacity to drive.

On 30 December 2014, while Mamraj was changing a tyre on his parked truck, another truck struck it from behind, causing the jack to collapse and the vehicle’s weight to fall on both his legs.

He was initially certified as having 40% permanent physical impairment in relation to both lower limbs; a later Medical Board assessed 30% impairment in relation to the right lower limb.

The Tribunal assessed his functional disability at 50%, applied monthly income of ₹10,478 based on minimum wages for a skilled worker, and awarded ₹19,39,348 with 9% interest.

The insurer appealed seeking reduction; Mamraj cross-appealed seeking enhancement.

Whether Mamraj’s functional disability, given his occupation as a truck driver and the injuries to his lower limbs, should be assessed above the Tribunal’s 50% assessment.

Whether his income or future prospects should be enhanced beyond the minimum-wage income and future-prospects assessment applied by the Tribunal.

Whether compensation for pain and suffering, mental and physical shock, and loss of amenities required adjustment.

Under Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343, the percentage of physical disability does not automatically determine the percentage of loss of earning capacity; functional disability must be assessed in light of the claimant’s occupation and its impact on earning capacity, and disability does not necessarily mean total inability to pursue any vocation.

As reiterated in Manish Madan v. Prem Pal Singh & Ors., MAC.APP. 1086/2016, possession or renewal of a driving licence, by itself, does not establish that a disabled claimant is physically capable of driving.

Under National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, the applicable future-prospects addition for a person not in permanent employment is 40%.

The Court also considered Chandra @ Chanda @ Chandraram v. Mukesh Kumar Yadav and Faridaben Mahebub Hajiya v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. on notional income, but declined to enhance income in the absence of evidence of actual earnings.

The Court found that the claimant’s lower-limb injuries and the medical evidence indicated likely difficulty running, climbing stairs, and performing prolonged standing duties; the evidence also raised difficulty about his ability to drive.

Renewal of his licence did not establish that he could safely drive a heavy truck, and there was no evidence that he had continued driving after the accident.

The Court therefore assessed functional disability at 70%, while rejecting 100% because the evidence did not establish that he could not pursue any other vocation.

It retained the minimum-wage income because actual earnings were unsubstantiated, applied 40% future prospects, and separately awarded ₹1,00,000 for loss of amenities while retaining ₹1,10,000 for pain and suffering and mental and physical shock.

The enhanced amount was directed to be deposited before the Tribunal within four weeks and released to the claimant in a lump sum; the balance compensation and accrued interest already deposited were also directed to be released in a lump sum.

Both appeals were disposed of, and pending applications were rendered infructuous.