Whole-body disability assessment must account for occupational impact, not mechanically apply a one-third limb-disability ratio.

Rathnawwa and her minor son Chetan were injured when the Tum-Tum in which they were travelling collided with a tractor and trailer on 24 January 2021.

They claimed compensation for their injuries, including permanent impairment.

The Tribunal awarded Rathnawwa ₹1,45,239 and Chetan ₹1,07,879, with interest at 6% per annum. They appealed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that the Tribunal had underestimated their disability and compensation under non-pecuniary heads.

The High Court considered the medical records and the evidence of the treating doctor, who assessed limb disability at 10% for Rathnawwa and 5% for Chetan.

Whether the Tribunal correctly assessed the claimants’ whole-body disability by taking one-third of their limb disability, or whether a different assessment was warranted in light of their occupation and functional impairment.

Whether the compensation awarded for loss of earning capacity and other heads required enhancement.

Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for an appeal against a Claims Tribunal’s award.

The Court referred to the Central Government/National Institute for Orthopedically Handicapped guidelines, under which the percentage of disability assessed for a particular joint is converted to limb disability, and limb disability may be divided by three to derive whole-body disability.

It also applied the principle in Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2002 SC 3652, that where a party declines to challenge evidence on a material point in cross-examination, the unchallenged evidence may be accepted.

In assessing compensation, the Court considered the practical effect of permanent impairment on the injured person’s occupation and earning capacity.

The Court accepted the doctor’s evidence of limb disability and found that the claimants’ assertions of continuing impairment had not been specifically challenged in cross-examination.

Although it held that taking one-third of limb disability as whole-body disability was arithmetically consistent with the cited guidelines, it considered that assessment inadequate in light of the claimants’ vegetable-vending work, which required substantial use of their limbs.

It therefore assessed whole-body disability at 5% for Rathnawwa and 2.5% for Chetan.

Applying the relevant income, future-prospects additions and multipliers, the Court recalculated loss of earning capacity and enhanced certain amounts for attendant charges, conveyance, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities. It left the medical-expense awards undisturbed.

Rathnawwa was awarded enhanced compensation of ₹1,20,155 and Chetan ₹44,709, each with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition until realization.

The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the enhanced amounts within six weeks of receiving a certified copy of the judgment.