Whole-body disability must reflect functional impact on earning capacity, not mechanical limb-disability conversion.

Mahadev was injured when the offending vehicle struck him from behind while he was walking to his agricultural land.

He sustained, among other injuries, a fracture of the right humerus and a fracture of the fifth metacarpal of the left hand

The Tribunal awarded ₹2,82,000 with 6% annual interest, assessed whole-body disability at 12% and monthly income at ₹8,000, and placed liability on the vehicle’s owner

Mahadev appealed, seeking enhancement.

The High Court considered the assessment of disability and income, compensation under other heads, and the insurer’s liability

Under Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, medical disability and functional disability are distinct; the Tribunal must assess the effect of the injury on the claimant’s earning capacity in light of the injury, its residual consequences, and the claimant’s occupation

The one-third approach to limb disability is not to be applied mechanically when determining functional disability

Pappu Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar and Sidram v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. recognise that an appropriate addition for future prospects may be made in injury cases; no minimum whole-body-disability threshold is required

The Court applied the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority’s 2017 notional-income figure of ₹10,250 per month

Under Sections 132–134 and 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the cited provisions concern duties following accidents and punishment for failure to comply; they do not themselves establish absence of a valid licence or permit

Relying on Kamala Mangalal Vayani v. United India Insurance Co., the Court held that, once insurance coverage is shown, the insurer must establish the asserted ground for avoiding liability; in appropriate circumstances, it may be directed to pay first and recover from the owner

The medical evidence, including the radiological report, supported the fractures and malunion, while the claimant’s limitations in raising his right arm, lifting heavy objects, and gripping affected his agricultural work

Considering those functional effects, the Court assessed whole-body disability at 20%, rather than mechanically adopting the Tribunal’s 12% assessment

With no documentary proof of actual income, it applied the 2017 notional income of ₹10,250 and added 25% for future prospects, calculating permanent-disability loss using a multiplier of 15

It also enhanced compensation for the laid-up period, diet and attendant charges, and loss of amenities, while maintaining the medical-expense and pain-and-suffering awards

As to insurance liability, the insurer had not independently proved the alleged absence of a valid licence or permit, although it had sought production of documents from the owner.

In those circumstances, the Court directed the insurer to pay the enhanced compensation first, with liberty to recover it from the owner

The Court modified the award, fixing total compensation at ₹6,09,636 and enhanced compensation at ₹3,27,636, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition until realisation

The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced amount within six weeks of receiving the certified copy of the judgment and was granted liberty to recover it from the vehicle’s owner