Below-knee amputation warrants disability assessment based on its impact on the claimant’s occupation.

On 12 December 2018, the appellant, a centering worker, was injured when a jeep allegedly driven negligently collided with his motorcycle. His right leg was amputated below the knee. He claimed that the injury prevented him from continuing his occupation and sought enhanced compensation.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded ₹23,22,882 with 6% interest. The claimant appealed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the adequacy of the award.

1. Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of the claimant’s disability and loss of future earning capacity warranted enhancement.

2. Whether compensation for an artificial limb, attendant charges, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and loss of income during treatment should be enhanced.

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

The Court relied on the 13 June 2001 Gazette guidelines for lower-limb amputation, under which below-knee amputation up to eight centimetres is assessed as 70% permanent physical impairment.

It also relied on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, which provides for a 40% addition towards future prospects for a self-employed person below 40 years.

It also relied on Mamathashree v. Saiyyad and Shankar Datt v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. in considering compensation for an artificial limb and attendant charges.

The Court found that the claimant’s below-knee amputation, with a stump of approximately eight centimetres, supported a 70% permanent physical impairment under the Gazette guidelines; it assessed whole-body disability at 80%, rather than the Tribunal’s 60%, taking account of the claimant’s ability to undertake some seated work.

It enhanced compensation for an artificial limb to ₹10,00,000 and attendant charges to ₹5,00,000, reasoning that an artificial limb would not restore normal function and that the claimant’s disability affected daily and occupational activities.

It also increased amounts for pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and laid-up-period income.

The judgment contains an apparent inconsistency: after calculating future-loss compensation at ₹25,26,720 in paragraph 24, paragraph 25 states that the Tribunal’s income and future-prospects figures required no interference; the final table nevertheless adopts ₹25,26,720.

The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced amount within six weeks of receiving the certified copy of the judgment.