JUDGMENT

1. By way of the present appeal, the appellant challenges the award dated 16.12.2020 (hereafter ‘impugned award’), passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereafter ‘Tribunal’), Saket Courts, New Delhi, in MACT No. 863/2018, essentially on three grounds:

i) The learned Tribunal erred in calculating the functional disability of the claimant/ appellant at 17% when it should have been taken as much as the permanent disability assessed, that is, 33%;

ii) The learned Tribunal erred in deducting 25% towards contributory negligence on part of the appellant;

iii) For the purpose of loss of future income, the learned Tribunal erred in not granting future prospects at 25%.

2. The facts leading to the present appeal are that the claimant had suffered multiple grievous injuries in the road accident which took place on 30.04.2018, when the appellant was crossing the road. The Medical Board assessed the injuries of the appellant at 33% permanent physical disability in relation to his right leg.

3. The learned Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 5,21,091/- under different heads, along with interest at the rate of 9%, from the date of filing the Detail Accident Report, that is , 07.09.2018 till realization of the said amount.

4. The three grounds taken by the appellant in the present appeal are dealt with as under:

Functional Disability

5. In regard to the assessment of functional disability, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was working as a Helper in a furniture showroom namely– Home Saaz Live N Style, situated at 10, Firoz Gandhi Road, Lajpat Nagar-III, New Delhi, and the nature of his work involved carrying, lifting and shifting furniture for the purpose of loading/ unloading the same in transport vehicles. He states that due to the injuries suffered by him, the appellant is unable to perform his duties in the manner prior to the accident.

6. The learned Tribunal noted that the appellant had suffered 33% permanent disability in relation to his right lower limb and claimed to be working as a helper in the furniture showroom at Lajpat Nagar at the time of the accident, however, no document/ evidence pertaining to his employment was filed by him to prove the nature of his work.

7. It is pertinent to note that in the absence of clear evidence to indicate the impact of permanent disability on the earning capacity of the victim, Courts and Tribunals generally assess the functional disability of the victim to be approximately half of the permanent disability suffered by the victim. For this reason, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar : (2011) 1 SCC 343 while noting that there existed no clear evidence to indicate the impact of permanent disability suffered by the victim on his functionality and earning capacity, however, considering that the same would impede his smooth functioning, had assessed the functional disability of the body as 25% where the victim suffered a permanently disability of 45% with respect to the left lower limb.

8. Consequently, this Court in a catena of decisions including a recent decision in the case of Rajender Singh v. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. : 2024 SCC OnLine Del 8839 while noting that the victim had failed to lead evidence to show the impact of permanent disability on his earning capacity, however considering the nature of injuries and the general impact of the disability on the functioning of the victim, had upheld the assessment of 33% functional disability where the victim had suffered permanent disability of 66%.

9. The nature of work before the accident is a relevant factor in determining the functional disability, however in the absence of any documentary evidence proving his employment, the assessment of 17% functional disability arrived at by the learned Tribunal, is reasonable. In the opinion of this Court, the said ground does not merit any consideration.

Contributory Negligence

10. In regard to th