Compensation for permanent disability must be assessed based on the loss of functional earning capacity rather than merely the percentage of physical impairment. Where an injury precludes the pursuit of professional duties, full functional disability is established, and interest is mandatory on all components of compensation.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP JAIN, J.

1. FAFO No. 69 of 2026 under Section 30 of the Employees’ Compensation Act,1923 has been filed by the insurer, The New India Assurance Company Limited, challenging the impugned order dated 24.10.2025 passed by the Employees’ Compensation Commissioner/Deputy Labour Commissioner, Moradabad in ECA Case No. 01 of 2022, Tayyab Alam vs. Farooq and another, whereby for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the course of his employment as a driver, compensation of Rs.9,04,222/- along with interest @ 12% per annum and Rs.3,38,103/- towards reimbursement of medical expenses has been awarded, which has been ordered to be indemnified by the insurer of Truck No. UP-21-CN-8245.

2. FAFO No. 42 of 2026 has been filed by the claimant under Section 30 of the Employees’ Compensation Act,1923 against the aforesaid impugned order seeking enhancement of compensation on the ground that the amount awarded by the Commissioner is not commensurate with the injuries suffered by him.

3. Since both the appeals arise out of the same impugned order, they were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

4. The factual matrix of the case is that the claimant was employed as a driver on Truck No. UP-21-CN-8245 owned by respondent no.2, Farooq. During the course of his employment, on 14.10.2021, when the truck was being driven by claimant from Bihar to Bahraich, then at Pandeypur within the jurisdiction of Police Station Ekauna, District Shravasti, a stray animal suddenly came in front of the vehicle. In an attempt to save the animal, the driver, Taiyyab Alam, lost control of the vehicle, which overturned and fell into a ditch, causing grievous injuries to the claimant, who was thereafter admitted to a private hospital for treatment. In the accident, both legs of the claimant were fractured and he also sustained injuries to his head and other parts of the body. It is the case of the claimant that he incurred expenditure of Rs.7,00,000/- towards his treatment, which is still continuing, and that he was treated at Medanta Hospital and RR Health Care (Dr. Khare Hospital), Delhi Road, Moradabad.

5. The claimant asserted that at the time of the accident he was drawing a salary of Rs.15,000/- per month besides daily diet allowance of Rs.100/-, and was aged about 30 years. An FIR in respect of the accident was lodged by Farooq on 16.10.2021 at Police Station Ekauna, District Shravasti.

6. Before the Commissioner, the employer/respondent no.2 Farooq appeared and admitted in his written statement that the claimant was employed as a driver on his truck and was being paid salary @ Rs.15,000/- per month. He further disclosed that the vehicle was insured with the appellant-insurance company for the period 03.12.2020 to 02.12.2021 and, therefore, the insurer was liable to indemnify any compensation awarded by the Commissioner.

7. The insurance company contested the claim by filing its written statement, disputing both the occurrence of the accident and the claimant’s employment with respondent no.2, and put the claimant to strict proof thereof. It was further contended that the claimant had not suffered any permanent disability so as to entitle him to compensation.

8. On the pleadings of the parties, the Commissioner framed the following issues:

• Whether the claimant, namely Taiyyab Alam, was