Compensation enhancement for amputation must include costs for artificial limbs, specialized attendants, and lifelong care assistance.

The Appellant, a Sports Officer under the Government of Tripura, met with a road accident on 15.11.2013 caused by a truck (TRL-3670) driven in a rash and negligent manner

He sustained a crush injury necessitating the amputation of his right leg above the knee and a degloving wound on the left leg

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) No. 4, West Tripura, awarded total compensation of ₹15,29,985/- on 17.11.2022

The Appellant challenged this award on the ground of inadequacy, specifically regarding medical costs, future treatment, and non-pecuniary damages

1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the heads of medical expenses, conveyance, and attendant charges was just and adequate

2. Whether the Appellant is entitled to additional compensation for the cost of an artificial limb and future lifelong attendant charges

The Court applied the principles of "just compensation" under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Raj Kumar v. Ajoy Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343 for the assessment of future loss of income due to permanent disability

Dinesh Singh v. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. (2014) regarding the impact of amputation on employment prospects and the necessity of compensation for pain and agony even if no immediate financial loss occurred

Ankur Kapoor v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2017) was cited to justify awards for future medical expenses and loss of amenities in cases of severe disability

The Court observed that while the Appellant did not suffer immediate loss of income as his government salary and pension remained unaffected, the Tribunal had already applied a multiplier of 9 to a perceived loss of ability, which was sufficient

the High Court found the Tribunal erred in calculating medical and incidental expenses. It noted that the Appellant produced a voucher for a custom-made 'T/F Prosthesis' (artificial limb) for ₹1,26,100/-, which the Tribunal overlooked

Regarding attendant charges, the Court determined that ₹20,000/- was inadequate for multiple hospital stays in Kolkata and Agartala; it calculated a requirement of ₹67,000/-, warranting an enhancement

the Court recognized that an individual with an above-knee amputation requires a lifelong attendant for daily activities, justifying a lump-sum award despite the lack of specific evidence on future costs

Non-pecuniary damages for pain and suffering (₹5,00,000/-) were deemed adequate given the Appellant's age of 57

This included ₹1,26,100/- for the artificial limb, ₹47,000/- for additional attendant charges, ₹10,000/- for conveyance, ₹8,000/- for return airfare, and ₹1,00,000/- for future lifelong attendant requirements. Respondent No. 2 (Insurer) was directed to pay the enhanced amount with 7% interest per annum from the date of filing the claim petition within two months