In a motor-accident (MACT) claim, the disability that decides your compensation is the functional disability, meaning how much of your actual work and earning capacity you have lost, not just the percentage written on the medical certificate. A below-knee amputee carpenter whose certificate said 70% was held 100% functionally disabled by the Supreme Court, because he could no longer hold the working postures carpentry demands.
If you are short on time, jump to the worked calculation below to see how a 70% certificate became a 100% payout.
In Shankar Dutt v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2026 INSC 656 (decided 24 June 2026), the Supreme Court heard a carpenter who lost a leg below the knee in a road accident. His disability certificate recorded 70%. The insurer and lower forums treated that figure as the whole story.
The Court disagreed. It held that for this man, in this trade, the loss was total. The judgment put it plainly:
The functional disability is one which is suffered and felt by the injured in his day-to-day life or in his avocation, occupation, business or profession.
Carpentry needs sustained standing, squatting and balanced postures over long hours. A below-knee amputee cannot maintain them. So functional disability was fixed at 100%, not 70%.
That single change drove the payout. The Court also raised his assessed monthly income from the High Court's ₹5,000 to ₹9,000, and awarded a total of ₹35,95,923 with interest at 6% per year from the date the claim was filed. That total included ₹10,00,000 toward a prosthetic leg and its upkeep over his lifetime.
The medical (anatomical) percentage measures the body. The functional percentage measures the working life. They are often not the same number.
| Aspect | Medical / anatomical disability | Functional disability |
|---|---|---|
| What it measures | Physical loss of a limb or organ | Loss of capacity to do your actual job |
| Who decides it | Medical board, on a certificate | The Tribunal or Court, on the facts |
| Same for everyone? | Yes, the body loss is fixed | No, it depends on your occupation |
| Carpenter, below-knee amputation | 70% | 100% |
| Why it matters | Starting point only | Decides the compensation amount |
The lesson: a desk worker and a carpenter with the same 70% certificate can have very different functional disability, because the same injury wrecks one livelihood and barely touches the other.
MACT compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 follows the multiplier method settled in Sarla Verma v. DTC and National Insurance Co. v. Pranay Sethi. Here are the steps, using the carpenter's verified figures.
Note: if the functional disability had stayed at 70%, only 70% of the earning loss would count, and the award would have been far smaller. That is why the functional finding mattered more than any other single number.
If you or a family member were offered a low amount because the certificate shows a modest percentage, you can argue functional disability tied to the real occupation. Do this:
For the step-by-step filing route, see how to file a MACT petition for motor accident compensation. To understand the age-based multiplier, read the multiplier method explained. If you work for yourself, see future prospects for self-employed claimants.
Ravi Kumar, 40, is a mason in Gaya district. After a truck hit his scooter, his right leg was amputated below the knee. His certificate reads 70%. The insurer offers a low sum on that figure.
His lawyer argues functional disability: masonry needs constant standing, climbing and balance, all now impossible, so the loss to his trade is total. The Tribunal accepts 100% functional disability. Income is fixed at ₹9,000 a month, 40% future prospects added, multiplier 15 applied, plus a separate head for his prosthetic leg and its lifetime upkeep. The award rises sharply above the insurer's first offer.
This example is illustrative and uses a fictional name. Your figures depend on your age, income and injury.
Functional disability is the share of your earning capacity and daily working ability that the injury has taken away. It is judged against your actual occupation, not measured only on the body. In Shankar Dutt v. United India Insurance, 2026 INSC 656, the Supreme Court called it the disability felt by the injured person in his day-to-day life or in his avocation, occupation, business or profession.
Yes. The medical certificate is a starting point, not the limit. In the carpenter's case the certificate said 70%, but functional disability was fixed at 100% because the trade needed working postures he could no longer hold. The Tribunal or Court can assess functional loss above the medical figure when the job demands it.
The Court fixed income at ₹9,000 a month, that is ₹1,08,000 a year, added 40% future prospects to reach ₹1,51,200, and applied a multiplier of 15. With other heads, including ₹10,00,000 for a prosthetic leg and its lifetime maintenance, the total came to ₹35,95,923, with 6% interest a year from the date of filing the claim.
Because the same injury can end one livelihood and barely touch another. A leg amputation may be total for a carpenter or mason who must stand and balance, but partial for someone who works seated. Functional disability ties the body loss to your real work, so the award reflects what you can no longer earn.
Yes. The cost of a prosthetic, its periodic replacement and its lifetime maintenance can be claimed as a separate head of compensation. In Shankar Dutt, the Supreme Court included ₹10,00,000 toward the prosthetic leg and its upkeep over the claimant's life, on top of the loss-of-earning amount.
Motor accident compensation claims are filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The amount is worked out using the multiplier method settled by the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. DTC and National Insurance Co. v. Pranay Sethi, applied to your income, future prospects and disability.
You can contest it. Argue functional disability tied to your trade, show which work tasks the injury now blocks, and bring income proof and the physical demands of your job on record. Cite the functional-versus-medical distinction in Shankar Dutt, 2026 INSC 656, and ask for all heads, including aids and future prospects.
Yes. The future-prospects addition from Pranay Sethi applies to injury and disability claims, not just death claims. In the carpenter's case, 40% was added to the annual income before the multiplier, lifting the earning-loss component well above the bare income figure.
For deeper guidance on using information rights to support a claim, see The RTI Playbook.