Above-knee amputation warranted assessment of 80% functional disability considering the claimant’s occupation.

The appellant–claimant was travelling in an Innova car when he stopped to assist a vehicle whose tyre had burst. A tempo, allegedly driven rashly and negligently, collided with the rear of the Innova, crushing the claimant between the vehicles and causing multiple fractures and crush injuries. His right leg was amputated above the knee; the disability was treated, with the parties’ consent, as 70% to the right leg and 10% to the left leg, while the functional disability was assessed by the High Court at 80%.

The claimant asserted that he was aged 43 years and earned Rs.15,000 per month as a restaurant supervisor. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bharuch, partly allowed M.A.C.P. No.98 of 2016 and awarded Rs.19,35,540 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing until realization.

The claimant filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation under the heads of loss of future income, pain and suffering, attendant charges, future medical expenses, artificial limb, and loss of amenities.

1. Whether the claimant’s income should be reassessed on the basis of the applicable minimum wages, and whether the correct addition for future prospects was 25% rather than 40%?

2. Whether the claimant’s functional disability should be assessed at 80% instead of 70% for computation of future loss of income?

3. Whether the compensation awarded under pain and suffering, attendant charges, artificial limb and its maintenance, future medical expenses, and loss of amenities required enhancement?

4. What would be the just and enhanced compensation payable to the claimant, and at what rate of interest?

The Court applied the motor accident compensation principle that the claimant is entitled to just and reasonable compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, assessed on the basis of proved or appropriately determined income, functional disability, age, multiplier, and the various pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses arising from the accident.

Under National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, read with Sidram v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 INSC 1202, a self-employed or non-permanently employed claimant aged between 40 and 50 years is entitled to a 25% addition for future prospects.

Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343, requires assessment of functional disability by considering the effect of the physical disability on the claimant’s actual earning capacity and avocation.

The Court relied on Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain v. Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1701, for appropriate compensation for pain, suffering and loss of amenities.

Relying on Prahlad Sahai v. Haryana Roadways & Anr., 2026 (0) AIJEL-SC 76872, and the principle reiterated from Chandra Mogera, the Court held that a prosthetic limb ordinarily requires replacement approximately every five years and that compensation should account for its future replacement and maintenance, subject to appropriate cost material.

The Court held that the claimant’s asserted income of Rs.15,000 per month was not proved by cogent evidence. However, the Tribunal’s assessment of Rs.7,000 per month was below the applicable minimum wage for a skilled worker, stated to be Rs.7,886 per month; the Court therefore rounded the monthly income to Rs.8,000.

Since the claimant was 43 years old, only 25% could be added for future prospects, resulting in a monthly income of Rs.10,000 for computation.

Given the above-knee amputation, multiple fractures, crush injuries, and the physical demands of his work as a supervisor, the Court increased functional disability from 70% to 80% and applied the multiplier of 14, awarding Rs.13,44,000 for future loss of income.

The Court enhanced non-pecuniary and incidental compensation by considering the 53-day hospitalization, surgery, eight months of OPD treatment, amputation, and resulting deprivation of normal life. It awarded Rs.5,00,000 for pain, shock and suffering, Rs.1,00,000 for attendant charges, and Rs.2,00,000 for loss of amenities, while retaining Rs.50,000 for special diet and transportation.

Although the Tribunal had awarded Rs.2,00,000 for future medical expenses relating to an artificial limb, the Court awarded an additional consolidated Rs.5,00,000 for the artificial limb and its maintenance, while retaining the existing Rs.2,00,000 for future medical expenses.

The total compensation was recalculated at Rs.33,51,860.

The High Court enhanced the total compensation from Rs.19,35,540 to Rs.33,51,860, resulting in an enhanced amount of Rs.14,16,320.

Interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization was maintained on the enhanced compensation.

Respondent No.3–Insurance Company was directed to deposit the awarded amount, including the enhanced amount with interest, within six weeks of receiving the order. The Tribunal was directed to disburse the entire amount to the claimant after due verification and deduction of any deficit court fee.

No order as to costs was made, and pending applications were disposed of.