Below-knee amputation rendered the labourer 100% functionally disabled for loss-of-earning-capacity assessment.

On 10 March 2013, the claimant, Pratapbhai Jesaji Bhil, aged approximately 36 years and working as a labourer, was walking by the roadside when he was struck by a Chhakda rickshaw allegedly driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 1. The accident resulted in grievous injuries and amputation of the claimant’s right leg below the knee.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded Rs.7,85,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing until realization.

Challenging the adequacy of the compensation, the claimant preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement, particularly on the grounds of income, future prospects, functional disability, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, attendant expenses, and prosthetic-limb costs.

Whether the claimant’s monthly income should be reassessed by reference to the minimum wages prevailing on the date of the accident and whether future prospects should be added.

Whether the claimant’s below-knee amputation resulted in 100% functional disability for the purpose of computing loss of future earning capacity, despite the medical certificate referring to 50% disability.

Whether the amounts awarded under pain and suffering, actual loss of income, attendant charges, special diet, transportation, and loss of amenities required enhancement.

Whether compensation should be awarded towards the cost, maintenance, and replacement of an artificial or prosthetic limb.

The Court applied the principles governing “just compensation” under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, including assessment of actual and future economic loss arising from permanent disability.

It relied on Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343, which distinguishes physical disability from functional disability and requires the Court to assess the effect of the injury on the claimant’s earning capacity rather than mechanically equate the medical disability percentage with economic loss.

The Court further applied the principle that future prospects may be added to income, assessed the appropriate multiplier with reference to the claimant’s age, and relied on Prahlad Sahai v. Haryana Roadways, 2026 ACJ 997, for awarding compensation for the recurring cost, maintenance, and replacement of prosthetic limbs, considering their limited useful life.

Since the claimant’s actual income was not proved by cogent evidence, the Court adopted the minimum wage applicable to a skilled worker in March 2013, namely Rs.5,180/- per month, rounded to Rs.5,200/-.

Applying 40% towards future prospects, the monthly income was assessed at Rs.7,280/-. Although the disability certificate recorded 50% disability, the Court held that the relevant inquiry was the impact on earning capacity.

Because the claimant was a labourer and the amputation of his right leg below the knee prevented him from continuing his pre-accident occupation, his functional disability was assessed at 100%.

Applying a multiplier of 15, future loss of income was calculated at Rs.13,10,400/-.

The Court enhanced the amounts for pain and suffering, actual income loss, attendant charges, special diet and transportation, and loss of amenities in view of the amputation, surgeries, prolonged treatment, and continuing deprivation of normal life.

It additionally awarded Rs.2,00,000/- for prosthetic limb(s), including maintenance and replacement expenses.

The total compensation was enhanced to Rs.19,01,600/-, comprising Rs.13,10,400/- for future loss of income, Rs.31,200/- for actual loss of income, Rs.1,25,000/- for pain, shock and suffering, Rs.50,000/- for attendant charges, Rs.25,000/- for special diet and transportation, Rs.1,50,000/- for loss of amenities, Rs.2,00,000/- for the artificial limb and its maintenance, and Rs.10,000/- for medical expenses.

After deducting the original award of Rs.7,85,000/-, the claimant became entitled to an additional Rs.11,16,600/- 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 additional amount with the Tribunal within six weeks, after which the Tribunal was to disburse the awarded amount subject to verification and deduction of any deficit court fee.