22-year-old woman left bedridden after leg amputation and loss of an eye awarded ₹71.46 lakh compensation by Gujarat High Court

On 19 July 2021, the appellant was travelling in an autorickshaw when a bus allegedly driven rashly and negligently collided with it, causing her grievous injuries

She was approximately 22 years old and claimed to be earning ₹9,000 per month as a labourer

Her injuries included amputation of the right leg below the knee, removal of the right eye, severe head injuries, hemiparesis and neurological impairment, leaving her bedridden

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gir-Somnath at Veraval, partly allowed M.A.C.P. No. 34 of 2021 by judgment dated 27 October 2023 and awarded ₹20,00,000 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing until realization

The claimant challenged the award in the present appeal, confined to enhancement of compensation

Whether the claimant was entitled to an addition of 40% towards future prospects while computing loss of future income?

Whether the claimant’s functional disability ought to be assessed at 100%, instead of 55%, having regard to her amputation, loss of the right eye, hemiparesis and bedridden condition?

Whether compensation required enhancement under the heads of future loss of income, attendant charges, pain and suffering, loss of amenities and loss of marriage prospects?

What enhanced compensation and interest should be awarded to the claimant?

The Court applied the principles governing “just compensation” under the Motor Vehicles Act, including assessment of loss of future earning capacity through the multiplier method.

Under National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, as applied in Sidram v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., a self-employed or otherwise non-salaried claimant below 40 years is entitled to a 40% addition for future prospects

Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar establishes that physical disability cannot be mechanically equated with functional or economic disability; the effect of the injury on the claimant’s actual earning capacity must be assessed

R. Halle v. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. supports assessment of functional disability at 100% where the claimant’s neurological, cognitive and physical impairments effectively destroy earning capacity

Under Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, attendant charges may also be calculated using the multiplier method, taking into account the claimant’s need for lifelong assistance

The Court further relied on K.S. Muralidhar v. R. Subbalakshmi for enhanced compensation for pain, shock and suffering, Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain v. Regional Manager, UPSRTC for loss of amenities, and Ramshad P. v. Afsal & Ors. for loss of marriage prospects

The Court upheld the Tribunal’s assessment of monthly income at ₹8,845, based on the applicable minimum wages for an unskilled worker, since the claimant’s actual income was not proved and that assessment was not challenged

As the claimant was 22 years old, the Court added 40% for future prospects, resulting in a monthly income of ₹12,383.

Although the claimant had filed a consent pursis referring to 55% disability, the medical evidence and discharge summaries established amputation below the knee, removal of the right eye, severe head injuries, hemiparesis and a bedridden condition

Applying Raj Kumar, the Court held that the Tribunal had mechanically treated bodily disability as functional disability and reassessed the claimant’s functional disability at 100%

Applying the multiplier of 18 appropriate to her age, it awarded ₹26,74,728 for future loss of income

The Court maintained ₹11,41,100 for medical expenses and ₹20,000 for special diet and transportation, but disallowed the separate award of ₹53,070 for actual loss of income because the case was treated as involving complete loss of earning capacity

Given the claimant’s permanent bedridden condition, it awarded ₹19,10,520 for attendant charges using the multiplier method, and enhanced compensation for pain and suffering to ₹7,00,000

It also awarded ₹2,00,000 for loss of amenities and ₹5,00,000 for loss of marriage prospects

The claimant’s total compensation was enhanced from ₹20,00,000 to ₹71,46,348, resulting in an additional award of ₹51,46,348

The additional compensation would carry interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization, excluding the 230-day delay in filing the appeal

Respondent No. 3, the insurer, was directed to deposit and satisfy the enhanced award within six weeks, after which the Tribunal was directed to disburse the amount to the claimant after due verification and deduction of any deficit court fee

No order as to costs was made