Below-knee amputation required 100% functional disability assessment in light of its impact on future earning capacity.

On 20 March 2006, the claimant, then approximately 15 years and 10 months old and studying in Standard 5, was struck from behind by an Eicher vehicle while walking to her farm. She sustained serious injuries, including amputation of her left leg below the knee.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kheda at Nadiad, awarded ₹4,62,000 in MACP No. 617 of 2006 by judgment dated 29 April 2013. The claimant appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, contending that the compensation was inadequate.

Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of the claimant’s functional disability and resulting compensation was inadequate in light of the below-knee amputation.

Whether the claimant was entitled to enhanced compensation, and, if so, in what amount and with what interest.

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

The Act is beneficial legislation, and compensation must be just, fair, reasonable and assessed holistically; it should not be niggardly or result in a windfall.

Relying on N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Karumai Ammal, (1980) 3 SCC 457, the Court emphasised that accident tribunals should protect innocent victims and avoid undue parsimony in compensation.

The Court also referred to Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari, 2025 (4) GLH 470, for using minimum wages to assess income where concrete evidence is absent, and to National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, for adding 40% towards future prospects.

The Court held that assessing functional disability at 60% failed to account adequately for the effect of the claimant’s amputation on her future life and earning capacity; it assessed the functional disability at 100%.

Applying the principles of just and fair compensation, and referring to minimum wages and future prospects, the Court reassessed the award under the heads of future loss of income (₹7,25,760), pain, shock and suffering (₹2,00,000), special diet, attendant and transport charges and medical expenses (₹75,000), loss of amenities (₹1,50,000), and artificial leg (₹2,50,000). The resulting total was ₹13,50,760, from which the Tribunal’s award of ₹4,62,000 was deducted.

The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the enhanced amount with interest within eight weeks of receiving the order; the Tribunal was directed to disburse the amounts in accordance with the specified procedure, and the remaining directions of the Tribunal were left undisturbed.