2025:UHC:9159 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS A.O. No.157 of 2024 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Shankar Aggarwal and Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocates for the appellant. Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, Advocate for the respondent no.2. 2. This Appeal from Order has been filed by the claimant for enhancement of the amount awarded by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar passed in M.A.C.P. No.297 of 2019. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 15.10.2015 at approximately 08:00 p.m., the appellant was standing on the unpaved portion at the side of Shaktifarm–Sitarganj Road, waiting for a vehicle, when a motorcycle bearing registration No. UP-26-K-2300, proceeding from the opposite direction, was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. On account of excessive speed and reckless driving, the rider lost control of the vehicle, which collided with the appellant. As a result, the appellant sustained grievous injuries, including serious fractures in his leg. The motorcyclist fled the scene immediately thereafter, leaving the appellant severely injured. The appellant was initially taken to the Government Hospital, Sitarganj, where first aid was administered. Considering the severity of his injuries, he was referred to a higher medical facility. Consequently, the appellant was 2025:UHC:9159 admitted to Bombay Hospital and Research Centre, Haldwani, on 16.10.2015, where he remained under treatment for approximately twelve days. During this period, surgical intervention was performed on his injured leg, which included the insertion of a metal rod and wiring to stabilize the fractures. The appellant continues to suffer from reduced mobility and permanent disability in the affected leg, which has had a significant impact on his capacity to earn a livelihood and on his overall quality of life. In view of the serious nature of injuries, prolonged hospitalization, surgical treatment, and resultant disability, the appellant seeks enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that, as a consequence of the aforesaid accident, the appellant sustained grievous injuries to his right leg, resulting in a permanent disability assessed at 45%. It is further contended that the appellant has, by reason of the accident, become permanently incapable of performing any gainful occupation, and, therefore, the disability should be treated as total, i.e., 100%, rather than 45%. Learned counsel further submits that, during testimony, a member of the Medical Board deposed that the appellant’s right leg has become shortened and stiff, thereby restricting his ability to bend the knee or assume a squatting posture, which significantly impairs his mobility and capacity to engage in daily activities. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company contends that the assessment 2025:UHC:9159 of disability must be made with reference to the nature of the appellant’s occupation and the duties performed therein. It is submitted that the appellant, being employed as a Supervisor in an agricultural field, was not engaged in any manual or mechanical work of a strenuous nature. Consequently, it is argued that the appellant’s disability does not result in any substantial loss of earning capacity, and, therefore, no additional compensation is warranted on account of the permanent impairment. 6. After considering the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the evidence and material available on record, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the award passed by the learned Tribunal. The Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence in assessing the functional disability of the appellant at 45%, taking into consideration the nature of his occupation as a Supervisor in an agricultural field, which does not require continuous physical exertion or manual labour. The contention of the appellant that his disability ought to have been treated as total (100%) is devoid of merit and contrary to the settled principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 7. In the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the principles for assessing compensation in motor accident cases involving permanent disability. The Court held that while determining compensation, a distinction must be made between physical disability and 2025:UHC:9159 functional disability — the latter being the real measure of loss of earning capacity. The percentage of functional disability should be assessed with reference to the nature of work performed by the claimant and its impact on his earning potential. The Court emphasized that compensation must be just, reasonable, and based on realistic assessment of evidence. 8. Similarly, in the case of Rekha Jain v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & others, reported in (2013) 8 SCC 389, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that loss of earning capacity must be determined based on the claimant’s profession and the impact of disability on livelihood. 9. In the present case, the appellant has failed to establish that the disability suffered by him has rendered him completely incapable of discharging his supervisory duties. The medical evidence relied upon only indicates restricted mobility in one leg, but does not substantiate total loss of earning capacity. The compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is, therefore, found to be just, reasonable, and in accordance with law. 10. Accordingly, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the well- reasoned award passed by the learned Tribunal. The appeal, being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed. The award of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is affirmed. 11. The statutory amount, if deposited by the appellant at the time of filing the appeal, shall be remitted to the Tribunal concerned for adjustment towards the 2025:UHC:9159 award amount. The balance amount, if any, shall be released in favour of the claimant as per the directions of the Tribunal. (Alok Mahra, J.) 14.10.2025 Arpan ARPAN JAISWAL Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c04853 65445e3a20dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D4 54C5109CB987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2025.10.14 17:46:17 +05'30'