Amputation preventing a claimant’s manual vocation warrants 100% functional disability for calculating future earnings loss.

On 16 December 2011, the claimant was travelling on a tractor-trolley carrying bamboo when the trailer’s coupling hook broke, causing the trolley to detach and overturn.

The claimant sustained multiple fractures and underwent a below-knee amputation of his left leg; the tractor driver also died in the accident.

The claimant sought compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vyara awarded Rs. 4,74,900 with 8% annual interest.

In his appeal, the claimant challenged the assessment of his functional disability and the amounts awarded under future-income loss and other heads.

1. Whether the claimant’s below-knee amputation, in light of his work, resulted in 100% functional disability and corresponding loss of future earning capacity.

2. Whether the compensation awarded for future loss of income and non-pecuniary, attendant, transportation, and prosthetic-leg expenses required enhancement.

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides the appellate basis for the appeal.

Applying Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, as quoted in the judgment, the Court stated that compensation for future earnings must reflect the effect of permanent disability on the claimant’s earning capacity; physical disability and economic loss are not automatically equivalent, and the assessment depends on the claimant’s work and circumstances.

The Court also relied on Mahadevbhai Samtabhai Prajapati v. Ayeshaben Ibrahimbhai Manasiya and referred to M. Paramesh v. VRL Logistics Ltd. in addressing functional disability and future prospects.

The Court considered the claimant’s amputation against the demands of his work, describing him as a cleaner/second driver and reasoning that loss of a leg prevented him from performing heavy-vehicle driving and associated manual tasks.

It therefore treated his loss of future earning capacity as 100%, rather than the 60% adopted by the Tribunal, and held that the Tribunal’s award for actual loss of income did not adequately address that future loss.

The Court also found that compensation should account for pain and suffering, loss of amenities, attendant and related expenses, and a prosthetic leg.

The Court recalculated total compensation at Rs. 18,07,820, including the Tribunal’s original award of Rs. 4,74,900, and awarded an additional Rs. 13,32,920.

The enhanced amount was directed to carry interest at 9% per annum from the claim-petition date, excluding a delayed period of 427 days; the Insurance Company was directed to deposit it within eight weeks, and the respondents/insurance companies were held jointly and severally liable.

The Tribunal’s remaining directions were left unchanged.