Amputation of a hand rendering the claimant unable to perform his avocation constitutes 100% functional disability.

The claimant sustained serious injuries in a motor-vehicle accident on 12 April 2003, including crush injuries resulting in amputation of his left hand below the elbow.

He was working as a press operator and book binder and claimed that the injury prevented him from performing his avocation and routine activities.

He filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal partly allowed the claim and awarded Rs.6,98,600/- with interest at 9% per annum, assessing monthly income at Rs.2,250/-, disability at 60%, and applying a multiplier of 16.

The claimant preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement.

The accident, ownership of the vehicle, and the insurer’s liability were not disputed before the High Court.

Whether the Tribunal correctly assessed the claimant’s income for computation of loss of future earnings, or whether the applicable minimum wages should have been considered.

Whether the claimant’s functional disability ought to be assessed at 100%, having regard to the amputation of his left hand and his avocation as a press operator and book binder.

Whether the claimant was entitled to an addition towards future prospects and to application of the appropriate multiplier based on his age.

Whether the compensation awarded under the pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads was just, fair, and reasonable.

The Court exercised appellate jurisdiction under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in relation to a claim under Section 166.

Compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act must be just, fair, and reasonable, and must be assessed holistically on the basis of the preponderance of probabilities; it should neither be a windfall nor a pittance.

Relying on Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, 2011 ACJ 1 (SC), the Court applied the principle that functional disability must be assessed with reference to the nature of the injury and its impact on the claimant’s actual avocation, rather than merely by adopting the percentage of physical disability.

Relying on Shankar Dutt v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1193, the Court reiterated the principles governing assessment of functional disability in cases of amputation.

Under National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, a self-employed or salaried claimant aged 30 years is entitled to a 40% addition towards future prospects, and the appropriate multiplier for the claimant’s age was 17.

The Court found that the Tribunal had assessed the claimant’s monthly income at Rs.2,250/- despite the applicable minimum wages for a skilled labourer being Rs.2,500/- per month at the time of the accident.

Since the claimant had lost his left hand below the elbow and could no longer perform his work as a press operator and book binder, the Court treated his functional disability qua his avocation as 100%, notwithstanding the Tribunal’s earlier assessment of disability at 60%.

Applying Pranay Sethi, the Court added 40% towards future prospects, resulting in a monthly prospective income of Rs.3,500/-.

Applying the multiplier of 17, the loss of future income was calculated at Rs.7,14,000/- (Rs.3,500 × 12 × 17).

The Court further enhanced the amounts for actual loss, pain and suffering, special diet, amenities/permanent disability, and artificial limb, while retaining the medical expenses of Rs.35,900/-.

The total compensation was consequently reassessed at Rs.15,04,900/-.

It determined the claimant’s total compensation at Rs.15,04,900/-, deducted the amount of Rs.6,98,600/- already awarded, and granted an enhanced amount of Rs.8,06,300/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization.

The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with accrued interest within eight weeks.

Upon deposit, the Tribunal was directed to disburse the amount to the claimant after verification and in accordance with due procedure, subject to deduction of court fees, if payable.

The appeal was allowed to that extent, and the Tribunal’s judgment and award were modified accordingly.