A professional driver’s leg amputation constituted 100% functional disability for assessing future-earning loss.

The claimant, a truck driver, was injured when the truck he was driving was struck from behind by a Hywa tipper.

He underwent medical treatment and sustained a permanent disability assessed at 70% in relation to his right lower limb.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded him Rs. 12,40,000 with interest at 6% per annum and placed liability on the insurer.

Dissatisfied with the quantum, the claimant appealed, seeking compensation for loss of future earning capacity and future prospects.

1. Whether the claimant’s permanent right-limb disability amounted to 100% functional disability for assessing loss of future earning capacity, given his occupation as a driver.

2. Whether the claimant was entitled to compensation for future prospects and, if so, what enhanced compensation was payable.

Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for an appeal against an award of the Claims Tribunal.

In assessing compensation for permanent disability, the court considered the claimant’s actual loss of earning capacity in light of his occupation, rather than treating the medical disability percentage as determinative of functional disability.

Relying on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (16) SCC 680, the court applied a 40% addition for future prospects.

It used the multiplier method, applying a multiplier of 15 for the claimant’s age of 37.

The Tribunal had treated the claimant’s 70% disability as temporary and had made no award for loss of future earning capacity, despite the evidence of permanent disability and amputation.

Because the claimant was a driver and had lost his right leg, the court found that he could no longer pursue that occupation and treated his functional disability as 100% for calculating future earnings.

Based on monthly income of Rs. 20,000, it calculated annual income at Rs. 2,40,000, applied the multiplier of 15, and added 40% for future prospects, producing Rs. 50,40,000.

It then deducted Rs. 4,80,000 already awarded for loss of income during treatment, leaving an enhanced amount of Rs. 45,60,000.

The insurer was directed to pay within eight weeks.

Of the enhanced amount deposited before the Tribunal, 70% was to be kept in a five-year fixed deposit, with the remaining 30% paid to the claimant; he could withdraw the quarterly interest from the deposit.