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

On 24 March 2007, the appellant, a 28-year-old truck driver, was driving Truck No. GJ-10-V-4700 when it was allegedly hit by Truck No. GJ-12-T-7668, driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.3.

The appellant sustained serious injuries, including amputation of his right leg below the knee, and filed a claim petition seeking compensation of ₹20,00,000 under the Motor Vehicles Act.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhrangadhra, partly allowed the claim and awarded ₹4,42,000 with interest at 9% per annum.

The claimant appealed, challenging only the quantum of compensation.

Before the High Court, he sought enhancement on account of daily allowance, future prospects, functional disability, attendant charges, prosthetic limb, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities.

1. Whether the appellant’s daily allowance of ₹100 per day ought to be included in determining his monthly income and whether future prospects ought to be added to that income.

2. Whether, having regard to the appellant’s amputation and his occupation as a heavy-vehicle driver, his functional loss of earning capacity should be assessed at 100% rather than 55%.

3. Whether the compensation awarded under the heads of actual loss of income, transportation, special diet, attendant charges, pain and suffering, prosthetic limb, and loss of amenities required enhancement.

The Court applied the principles governing assessment of just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, including determination of actual income, future prospects, functional disability, and pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses.

Relying on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, AIR 2017 SC 5157, and Sidram v. The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2023) 3 SCC 439, it held that 40% may be added towards future prospects for a 28-year-old claimant.

Under Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343, functional disability is distinct from medical or physical disability and must be assessed with reference to the claimant’s occupation, the nature of his disability, and its impact on his earning capacity; in an appropriate case, a driver’s functional disability may be 100% even where the certified physical disability is lower.

Compensation must also be awarded for actual income loss, medical expenses, attendant charges, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and necessary future prosthetic treatment.

The Court found that the appellant held a valid licence to drive transport vehicles and had been working as a truck driver.

It included the unconsidered daily allowance of ₹100 per day in his income, increasing the monthly income from ₹3,300 to ₹6,300, and added 40% future prospects, producing a monthly figure of ₹8,820.

Applying Raj Kumar, the Court held that amputation of the right leg below the knee prevented the appellant from continuing his occupation of driving a heavy truck.

Accordingly, despite the medical certificate recording 70% permanent partial disability and the Tribunal’s assessment of 55% functional disability, the Court reassessed functional disability at 100% and applied a multiplier of 17 to calculate future loss of income.

The Court further enhanced the amounts for actual loss of income, transportation and special diet, attendant charges, and pain, shock and suffering, and awarded new amounts for a prosthetic limb and loss of amenities of life, considering the amputation, hospitalisation, surgery, continuing treatment, and permanent deprivation of a normal life.

The total compensation was enhanced to ₹28,79,080, comprising future loss of income, prosthetic limb expenses, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, attendant charges, transportation and special diet, actual loss of income, and medical expenses.

After deducting the Tribunal’s award of ₹4,42,000, the appellant was granted additional compensation of ₹24,37,080 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition until realization, excluding the specified period during which the appeal remained dismissed for non-removal of office objections.

The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the additional amount with interest before the Tribunal within four weeks, whereafter the Tribunal was directed to disburse the awarded amount after verification and deduction of any deficit court fee.