Under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, can the percentage of permanent physical disability certified by a Medical Board be adopted as the percentage of loss of earning capacity?

No. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. What requires to be assessed is the effect of the permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured, which is then quantified in terms of money by applying the standard multiplier method.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Just compensation — Permanent physical disability and functional disability — Loss of earning capacity — Appellate reappreciation of a Tribunal's award — Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Permanent disability — Not to be mechanically equated with loss of earning capacity — Held: The percentage of permanent disability certified by a medical expert cannot be mechanically adopted as the percentage of loss of earning capacity. What must be determined is the actual impact of that disability on the injured's capacity to earn in his avocation. (¶27) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Appellate interference — Reappreciation and cogent reasons required — Held further: An appellate court reducing the functional disability found by the Tribunal must reappreciate the medical evidence and assign cogent reasons. A reduction made without adverting to the disability certificate or the neuropsychological report, and without contra material, rests on presumptions and assumptions. (¶21, 22) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Head injury — Cognitive impairment in a managerial avocation — Held further: Where a head injury leaves severe impairment of memory, frontal lobe dysfunction and an IQ placing the claimant in Mild Intellectual Disability, the faculties essential to a managerial post stand irreversibly impaired. Functional disability is then reckoned at 100% though physical disability was certified at 63%. (¶29, 30) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Beneficial and welfare-oriented legislation — Just compensation redetermined — Held further: The Act being beneficial and welfare-oriented, interference with a reasoned award must accord with its object of expeditious relief and just compensation. Compensation was redetermined at Rs.97,73,011/- with interest at 7.5% per annum; appeal allowed. (¶32, 35)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of R. HALLE v. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India