$~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 22^nd January 2026 + MAC.APP. 802/2013 ANIL KUMAR .....Appellant Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Adv.

versus RAJEEV MEHTA & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr, Rajeev Roy & Mr. P Srinavasan, Advs. for R-3 CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

JUDGMENT

ANISH DAYAL, J (Oral)

1. This appeal has been filed by the claimant [appellant herein] seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [‘MACT’], Patiala House Courts, vide order dated 6^th May 2013, in MACT No. 144/2011. The compensation awarded was of Rs.3,50,797/- along with 7.5% interest from the date of filing the petition till the realisation.

2. On 4^th February 2009, at Purana Kila Road, T Point, when the claimant, Anil Kumar, driving his motorcycle, was injured when a car bearing no. ‘DL 4CP 9088’, suddenly opened its door and hit the motorcycle. MACT held that rash and negligent act was attributable to the driver/respondent no.1, as proved on the preponderance of probabilities, on the basis of the FIR, charge-sheet and a mechanical inspection report.

3. Computation of the compensation awarded by the MACT is as under:

S.NO HEADS AWARDED BY MACT

1. Medicine and Medical Treatment Rs. 19,873/- 2. Pain and Suffering Rs. 50,000/- 3. Loss of Amenities Rs. 20,000 /- 4. Conveyance and Special Diet Rs. 20,000 /- 5. Loss of Income on account of Rs. 2,40,924 /- Disability [Unskilled wages Rs.3934 x 30% disability ]

1181 x 12 x 17 (multiplier)

6. Cost of Artificial Limb Nil Total Compensation Rs. 3,50,797 /-

Rate of Interest 7.5%

4. For loss of income on account of disability, wages were taken as minimum wages of an unskilled worker since there was no proof which was given and the functional disability was calculated at 30%. On that basis, the multiplier applied was ‘17’, the age being 28 years, loss of income was computed at Rs.2,40,924/-.

5. Counsel for the appellant seeks enhancement on the following grounds: firstly, that the functional disability ought to have been assessed at 60%, considering that his right leg had been amputated. For this purpose, he relies upon the Disability Certificate [Ex. PW-1/1], which shows that 60%, permanent physical impairment in relation to the right lower limb and below-knee amputation up to the lower one-third of the leg.

6. The impugned award in paragraph 27, assesses the functional disability, in relation to the whole body at 30%, and therefore held the claimant entitled for compensation, accordingly with the multiplier.

7. Counsel for respondent no.3/Insurance Company states that this assessment would be appropriate, considering that the 60% physical disability relates to one leg and, therefore, when considered with respect to the whole body, 30% was appropriate.

8. Considering that the claimant's evidence that he was self-employed and earning up to Rs.7,000/- to Rs.9,500/- per month, relying on Exhibit PW-1/2, the certificate issued by Sharma Refrigeration and Air Conditioning to prove his employment with the said organization, the vocation of the claimant was that of an air conditioner mechanic.

9. In the opinion of this Court, considering his vocation was to repair air conditioners, and to continue such work would involve climbing ladders and stools and some vertical movement, it would be difficult for the claimant to carry on his vocation in the manner he previously did. Accordingly, in the assessment of this Court, the functional disability, applying the principles of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Another (2011) 1 SCC 343, the functional disability percentage ought to have be in the range of 50%.

10. In Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (supra), the Supreme Court held that the Tribunal must assess not merely the extent of permanent disability but its actual impact on the claimant’s earning capacity, which may differ from the medical percentage of disability. This requires evaluating the claimant’s pre- accident vocation, the functions affected, and whether livelihood can still be