Below-knee amputation in a labourer warrants assessment of 70% functional disability for future-income loss.

On 19 July 2021, the appellant was travelling in an autorickshaw when a bus allegedly driven rashly and negligently collided with it, causing her grievous injuries.

She was approximately 25 years old and claimed to be earning ₹9,000 per month as a labourer.

Her right leg was amputated below the knee following multiple fractures, crush injuries, and surgical treatment.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gir-Somnath at Veraval, partly allowed M.A.C.P. No. 35 of 2021 and awarded ₹11,56,752 with interest at 9% per annum.

The claimant challenged the award only on the quantum of compensation, principally concerning future prospects, functional disability, attendant charges, non-pecuniary damages, and the cost and maintenance of a prosthetic leg.

1. Whether the claimant was entitled to an addition of 40% towards future prospects while computing her loss of future income?

2. Whether the claimant’s functional disability should be assessed at 70%, rather than 35%, considering the amputation of her right leg and her occupation as a labourer?

3. Whether the claimant was entitled to enhanced or separate compensation for pain and suffering, attendant charges, loss of amenities, facial disfigurement, and the cost and future maintenance of a prosthetic leg?

4. What should be the enhanced compensation and applicable interest?

The Court applied the principles in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, and Sidram v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 INSC 1202, under which a 40% addition for future prospects is appropriate for a claimant aged below 40 years, including where income is assessed on the basis of minimum wages.

Relying on Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343, the Court held that permanent physical disability cannot be mechanically equated with functional disability or loss of earning capacity; the impact of the injury on the claimant’s actual occupation must be assessed.

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 under pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and disfigurement.

It further applied Prahlad Sahai v. Haryana Roadways & Anr., 2026 INSC 396, recognising a five-year replacement block for prosthetic limbs and awarding their anticipated replacement cost over the claimant’s assumed life expectancy of 70 years.

The multiplier of 18 was applied having regard to the claimant’s age of 25 years.

The Tribunal’s assessment of monthly income at ₹8,845 on the basis of prevailing minimum wages was left undisturbed.

Since the claimant was 25 years old, the Court added 40% towards future prospects, producing a monthly income of ₹12,383 for computation of future loss of income.

Although the claimant had filed a pursis agreeing to assessment of disability at 35%, the Court held that the Tribunal had mechanically treated bodily disability as functional disability.

Considering the amputation below the knee and the substantial restriction on the claimant’s ability to work as a labourer, the Court assessed functional disability at 70%.

Applying the formula ₹12,383 × 70% × 12 × 18, the Court awarded ₹18,72,310 for future loss of income.

The existing awards for actual loss of income and medical expenses were maintained.

In view of the multiple fractures, three surgeries, prolonged hospitalisation, amputation, and facial injuries, the Court enhanced pain and suffering to ₹1,50,000 and additionally awarded ₹1,00,000 for attendant charges, ₹2,00,000 for loss of amenities, and ₹50,000 for facial disfigurement.

Since the prosthetic-leg bill of ₹1,03,740 was proved, the Court awarded nine replacement blocks, totalling ₹9,33,660, based on the claimant’s age and a life expectancy of 70 years.

The total compensation was enhanced to ₹37,64,040, comprising ₹18,72,310 for future loss of income, ₹53,070 for actual loss of income, ₹3,85,000 for medical expenses, ₹1,00,000 for attendant charges, ₹1,50,000 for pain and suffering, ₹2,00,000 for loss of amenities, ₹50,000 for facial disfigurement, ₹9,33,660 for the prosthetic leg and its future maintenance, and ₹20,000 for special diet and transportation.

After deducting the amount already awarded, the claimant became entitled to an additional ₹26,07,288.

Interest at 9% per annum was maintained on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of the claim petition until realisation, excluding the 249-day delay in filing the appeal.

The insurer was directed to deposit the amount within six weeks, after which the Tribunal was directed to disburse it after due verification and deduction of any deficit court fee.