Amputation warrants 100% functional disability where it prevents the claimant from pursuing their avocation.

The claimants sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for injuries sustained in a road accident, including amputations of the right hand/upper limb.

The Tribunal partly allowed the claims, awarding Rs. 4,17,580 in MACP No. 25 of 2007 and Rs. 3,78,700 in MACP No. 24 of 2007, with interest at 7.5% per annum. The claimants appealed for enhancement; the accident and the owner’s and insurer’s liability were not disputed

1. Whether the Tribunal’s awards constituted just, fair and reasonable compensation, particularly in its assessment of disability and loss of future income

2. Whether the claimants were entitled to enhanced compensation under the relevant heads, including future loss of income and non-pecuniary losses

Under Sections 166 and 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a claimant may seek compensation for injuries and challenge the Tribunal’s award on appeal.

Compensation must be just, fair and reasonable, assessed holistically and on a preponderance of probabilities, without becoming either a windfall or a pittance.

Under Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, 2011 ACJ 1 (SC), functional disability is assessed by considering the nature of the injury and its effect on the claimant’s ability to perform their avocation; it need not correspond to the percentage of physical disability.

The Court also relied on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, for future prospects, and referred to Shankar Dutt v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1193, as reiterating the principles on functional disability.

Although the Tribunal had assessed disability at 43% and 46%, the Court considered the amputations in light of the claimants’ work, including tailoring, embroidery, papad-making and diamond polishing. It concluded that the injuries prevented them from continuing their pre-accident avocations and therefore treated them as 100% functionally disabled for that work.

Applying the principles on future prospects and multiplier, the Court recalculated compensation and enhanced the amounts under future loss of income and other heads, including pain and suffering, medical bills, loss of amenities, transport and special diet.

The judgment states that a 9% interest rate was maintained but specifies 7.5% in the compensation tables and in the direction concerning enhanced compensation.

The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced amounts with accrued interest within eight weeks, after which the Tribunal was to disburse the amounts following verification and applicable procedure.

The judgment’s interest directions are internally inconsistent: paragraph 8 refers to 9%, whereas the tables and paragraph 9.2 specify 7.5%.