A mason’s above-knee amputation warrants 100% functional disability when it forecloses his livelihood.

The claimant, a 36-year-old mason, sustained serious injuries in a road accident on 12 February 2018, resulting in amputation of his right leg above the knee and permanent disability to his right arm.

The MACT assessed his monthly income at ₹11,000, treated his disability as 50%, and awarded total compensation of ₹18,74,969 with interest at 7.5% per annum.

The claimant appealed seeking enhancement, including reassessment of income and functional disability, future prospects, and future medical expenses for a prosthetic limb

Under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, an appeal lies to the High Court against a MACT award.

Applying Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, the percentage of physical disability cannot automatically be equated with loss of earning capacity; the tribunal must assess the effect of the disability on the claimant’s occupation and earning capacity.

The Court also applied M. Paramesh v. VRL Logistics Ltd., which held that amputation may amount to 100% functional disability where it prevents an injured person from continuing the physical occupation that was his source of livelihood; that decision also recognised the need to account for future prosthesis-related expenses.

The Court considered the claimant’s amputation above the knee, his 49% disability in the right arm, and evidence that he required assistance with daily activities and could not return to masonry.

Applying Raj Kumar and M. Paramesh, it found that the claimant’s functional loss of earning capacity was 100%, notwithstanding the Tribunal’s lower disability assessment.

It adopted monthly income of ₹12,500 for the year of the accident, added 40% for future prospects, and applied a multiplier of 15, calculating future loss of earning capacity at ₹31,50,000.

It also enhanced compensation for attendant, food and conveyance expenses, laid-up-period loss of income, and future medical expenses, including the prosthesis.

The Court enhanced total compensation from ₹18,74,969 to ₹42,88,969, with interest at 7.5% per annum, and directed the insurer to deposit the enhanced amount with applicable interest within eight weeks of receiving the judgment.

The remaining parts of the Tribunal’s award were left undisturbed, and no order as to costs was made.