17-Year-Old’s Foot Amputated After Bus Tyre Burst: Delhi HC Enhances Compensation By Rs 23.25 Lakh, Rejects Insurer’s Cooler-Fall Claim

On 15 May 2011, Krishan Kumar, then 17, was travelling in a bus when a tyre burst and a sheet in the bus struck his right leg.

The injury ultimately led to below-knee amputation.

The MACT awarded him Rs. 10,18,655 with 7.5% interest.

The insurer appealed, disputing the accident’s cause and the finding of negligence; Krishan Kumar cross-appealed for enhanced compensation, including future earning loss and prosthetic-limb costs.

Sections 165(1) and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 cover bodily injury arising out of the use of a motor vehicle; negligence is not the only basis for such a claim, and the causal connection between vehicle use and injury is material.

Under Minu B. Mehta v. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan, an owner relying on mechanical failure must plead and prove that the defect was latent and undiscoverable despite reasonable care; the burden of proving the mechanical defect and due care lies on the owner.

Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. recognises strict liability principles in motor-accident claims, while Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar requires functional disability to be assessed in light of the claimant’s likely vocation and the effect of the injury on earning capacity.

Rule 94 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 requires tyres to be properly inflated and maintained in good and sound condition.

For prosthetic compensation, Prahlad Sahai v. Haryana Roadways applied a five-year replacement period and awarded standardised limb and maintenance costs.

The Court upheld the accident finding on the combined evidence: the claimant’s and other bus occupants’ consistent accounts, the contemporaneous medical record describing a road-traffic accident, the DD entry and the owner’s response identifying his son as the driver.

It accepted the father’s explanation that the cooler account was given to obtain prompt treatment and found the insurer’s contrary medical opinion insufficient, particularly as its doctor had not examined the claimant.

The insurer also failed to establish that a cooler was installed in the bus or that the tyre burst resulted from a latent defect despite reasonable care.

The Court therefore rejected the mechanical-failure defence; it also held that the statutory claim was not defeated merely because the accident involved mechanical failure.

For enhancement, it assessed the claimant’s notional income at the skilled-worker minimum wage of Rs. 7,410 per month, applied 40% future prospects, a multiplier of 18 and 75% functional disability, and awarded medical expenses and enhanced loss of amenities.

It further allowed for prosthetic limbs and maintenance based on the principles in Prahlad Sahai.

The Court enhanced the compensation by Rs. 23,25,968, with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of the claim petition, and directed deposit within four weeks; Rs. 5,00,000 of the enhanced amount was to be released immediately, with the balance placed in staggered FDRs.

It separately directed deposit for prosthetic limbs, payable against verified invoices and proof of payment, with any unused amount refundable to the insurer.

The judgment contains inconsistent prosthetic-limb figures: paragraph 77 states Rs. 40,95,000, while the operative direction in paragraph 83 orders deposit of Rs. 45,95,000.