Whole-body disability must reflect functional impact and occupation, not a mechanical one-third conversion of limb impairment.

Ashok sought compensation for injuries sustained when a lorry struck him on 4 March 2023.

The Tribunal awarded compensation with interest at 6% per annum.

Ashok appealed for enhancement; the insurer appealed seeking reduction, alleging contributory negligence and breaches concerning the driver’s licence and vehicle permit.

The High Court assessed the medical evidence, the claimant’s functional disability and earning capacity, and the additional licence and permit documents produced on appeal.

Under Sections 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act and Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the High Court considered the cross-appeals and additional documents.

Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343, requires assessment of functional disability by considering the claimant’s occupation and ability to continue that work or undertake alternative work; medical disability does not automatically determine loss of earning capacity.

Pappu Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar, (2020) 14 SCC 516, and Sidram v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2023 (3) SCC 439, support adding future prospects to the income of an injured claimant with permanent impairment.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121, supplied the future-prospects percentage and multiplier principles.

Raj Rani v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 13 SCC 654, recognises that strict rules of evidence do not apply with their full rigour to motor-accident claim proceedings; Kamala Mangalal Vayani v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2010) 12 SCC 488, places the burden on the insurer to establish an alleged policy breach once the policy is shown to be in force.

The Court rejected contributory negligence: the medical note that Ashok was “under alcoholic influence, drowsy” did not establish the degree of impairment or show that it caused the accident; the sketch placed the accident near the road’s southern edge, and the insurer had not put its specific negligence allegations to the claimant in cross-examination.

Accepting the doctor’s assessment of 60% lower-limb disability, the Court assessed functional disability at 45%, taking account of Ashok’s coolie work, the serious foot and ankle injuries, and the possibility—but difficulty—of alternative work.

It fixed monthly income at Rs.15,500, added 40% for future prospects, and applied multiplier 16, producing Rs.18,74,880 for future loss of income.

It also enhanced several non-pecuniary heads and awarded Rs.45,000 for laid-up-period income and Rs.50,000 for future medical expenses.

As to liability, the licence and permit documents showed validity on the accident date, and the insurer had not otherwise proved a policy breach.

The award was modified to provide total compensation of Rs.22,43,988, including enhanced compensation of Rs.11,27,480, with interest at 6% per annum from the claim-petition date, except on the Rs.50,000 awarded for future medical expenses.

The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced compensation within six weeks; the amount deposited in its appeal was to be transmitted to the Tribunal.