Amputation compensation must account for skilled minimum wages, prosthetic costs, and non-pecuniary losses.

On 30 April 2016, the claimant fell from a tractor and his left leg was crushed under its wheel.

He brought a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal assessed 100% loss of future income, but calculated income at ₹5,000 per month and awarded ₹11,45,000 in total compensation. It granted interest at 6% only on ₹65,000.

The claimant appealed, seeking reassessment of income and enhancement of compensation under non-pecuniary and related heads.

1. Whether the claimant’s monthly income should be assessed at the prevailing minimum wage for a skilled worker, with the applicable addition for future prospects, when calculating future loss of income.

2. Whether the compensation awarded for pain and suffering, special diet, attendant and transportation expenses, loss of amenities, and a prosthetic leg should be enhanced or awarded.

3. Whether interest should be awarded at 9% per annum on the entire compensation, rather than at 6% only on ₹65,000.

The claim arose under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which provides for compensation claims arising from motor-vehicle accidents.

The Court assessed future loss of income using the skilled-worker minimum wage stated to prevail at the time of the accident, a 40% addition for future prospects, 100% disability, and a multiplier of 18.

It also assessed compensation under the identified heads of pain and suffering, special diet, attendant and transportation expenses, medical expenses, loss of amenities, and prosthetic limb costs.

No judicial precedents or further statutory provisions are cited in the judgment.

The Court found that the claimant’s below-knee amputation supported the Tribunal’s assessment of 100% loss of future income, but held that using ₹5,000 monthly income failed to account for the skilled-worker minimum wage of ₹8,133.

Applying 40% future prospects and the multiplier of 18, the Court recalculated future loss of income at ₹24,59,376.

It also considered the Tribunal’s awards for pain and suffering and related expenses inadequate in light of the amputation, and awarded amounts for loss of amenities and a prosthetic leg, which the Tribunal had not allowed.

Finally, it held that restricting interest to ₹65,000 was unjustifiable and that 9% interest should apply to the entire compensation.

The Court increased total compensation to ₹30,54,376, resulting in an additional award of ₹19,09,376, and directed that interest at 9% per annum be paid on the entire compensation from the date of filing the claim petition until realization.

The insurer was directed to deposit the additional compensation within eight weeks; the Tribunal was to disburse the amount to the claimant.

The remainder of the Tribunal’s judgment and decree was left unaltered.