Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Basic design in Arun Kr(D)I(366/22/Dbgr) vs Adil Khan(Oic) on 13 October, 2025Matching Fragments
31. Hence, the Tribunal has to examine as to how the disability suffered by the petitioner affects his ability to earn. In the present matter, as mentioned above, the petitioner has alleged that he was working as a Graphic Designer. The work of a Graphic Designer is basically a sitting job which involves working on a computer. It is not a physical job, but an intellectual one. Hence, it cannot be said that due to his permanent disability in his leg, the petitioner is no longer competent or qualified to work as a Graphic Designer, as the job mainly involves mind application and usage of hands, which in the present case are fortunately intact. Hence, in the opinion of this Tribunal, he cannot be considered to have RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.10.13 16:04:00 +0530 suffered 43% functional disability. Considering the facts and circumstances, his functional disability is assessed at 20%.