Below-knee amputation justified assessing a mason’s functional disability at 90% for future loss of income.

The claimant, aged 53, sustained a left-foot crush injury resulting in below-knee amputation in a road accident on 6 May 2024.

The MACT awarded him ₹18,62,732, including compensation for disability-related loss of income, pain and suffering, amenities, and future medical expenses.

He appealed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement.

The insurer appeared; notice to the vehicle owner was dispensed with.

1. Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of compensation for pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and loss of income during the claimant’s recovery period required enhancement.

2. Whether the claimant was entitled to enhanced compensation for future loss of income based on his functional disability and future prospects.

3. Whether future medical expenses should be enhanced to account for the cost and replacement of a prosthetic limb.

Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for an appeal against an award of the Claims Tribunal.

In assessing compensation for permanent disability, the Court considered the claimant’s age, occupation, functional disability, and applicable multiplier; it applied a 10% addition for future prospects and used the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority’s notional income of ₹17,000 per month for 2024.

For future medical expenses, the Court relied on Tata AIG General Insurance Limited v. Suraj Kumar and Others, 2025 ACJ 1314, concerning the cost of a prosthetic limb.

The Court found the Tribunal’s multiplier of 11 appropriate for the claimant’s age, but replaced the Tribunal’s monthly income figure of ₹16,500 with the 2024 notional income of ₹17,000.

Given the below-knee amputation and the claimant’s work as a mason, it assessed functional disability at 90%, despite the doctor’s assessment of 70%, and added 10% for future prospects. Applying these figures, it calculated future loss of income at ₹22,21,560.

It increased compensation for pain and suffering and loss of amenities, allowed six months’ income for the laid-up period, and assessed prosthetic-limb expenses at ₹6,00,000 on the basis that the limb would need replacement three times.

It otherwise left medical expenses and attendant and conveyance charges unchanged.

The Court enhanced the total compensation to ₹33,16,692, entitling the claimant to an additional ₹14,53,960, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition until realization.

The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced amount with interest within six weeks.

Of the enhancement, ₹5,00,000 was ordered released to the claimant, ₹5,00,000 placed in a five-year fixed deposit, and the balance placed in a ten-year fixed deposit.