Compensation for amputation must include lifetime costs for periodic prosthetic replacements and maintenance to ensure just restitution.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the functional disability of the claimant was correctly assessed at 50% in light of the 80% permanent physical disability of the limb

The court held

The Court dismissed the Insurance Company's appeal and allowed the claimant's appeal for enhancement.

It also directed

The total compensation (excluding prosthetics) was increased from Rs. 18,94,000 to Rs. 36,08,781 with 9% interest

The award for the prosthetic limb was enhanced from a lump sum of Rs. 5,30,000 to a total of Rs. 37,17,225, to be maintained in an interest-bearing FDR and disbursed upon production of actual invoices for replacements and maintenance

The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the enhanced amount within four weeks

01Facts

On August 20, 2017, the claimant (Nisha), aged 25, was hit by a DTC bus driven rashly and negligently, resulting in her left leg coming under the wheels

p. 2

The injuries led to a post-traumatic amputation of the left leg above the knee, resulting in an 80% permanent disability of the left lower limb

p. 2, 3

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded Rs. 18,94,000 plus Rs. 5,30,000 for an artificial limb

p. 2

The Insurance Company appealed for a reduction of functional disability from 50% to 40%, while the claimant sought enhancement of compensation across several heads

p. 2

02Issues

i.1. Whether the functional disability of the claimant was correctly assessed at 50% in light of the 80% permanent physical disability of the limb

pp. 2 / para. 4-6

ii.2. Whether the notional income should be based on the minimum wages of an unskilled worker or a matriculate, given the claimant's educational qualifications

pp. 3 / para. 7-8

iii.3. Whether the non-pecuniary damages for pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and disfigurement were adequate

pp. 4 / para. 10-13

iv.4. Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation for loss of marriage prospects and recurring costs for prosthetic limb replacements

pp. 9-10 / para. 14-18

03Law Applied

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

It relied on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) to determine future prospects at 40% for a victim below 40 years

pp. 3-4

Regarding non-pecuniary damages, the court cited K.S. Muralidhar v. R. Subbulakshmi (2024), emphasizing that compensation for pain and suffering must reflect the victim's lifelong deprivation

pp. 4-5

Finally, it followed Mohd. Sabeer v. U.P. SRTC (2023) to assess recurring costs for prosthetic limbs (every 5-6 years) and the liberal award of non-pecuniary damages in amputation cases

pp. 7-9

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 2

04Reasoning

The Court upheld the 50% functional disability assessment, noting that for a 25-year-old, the amputation severely depletes future earning potential

¶ 6

Regarding income, the Court modified the MACT’s use of unskilled wages to matriculate wages (Rs. 16,468/month), noting the claimant had passed Class XII in the First Division

¶ 8

Applying Pranay Sethi, 40% future prospects were added

¶ 9

For non-pecuniary heads, the Court found the MACT’s awards inadequate; following the liberal approach in Mohd. Sabeer, it increased pain and suffering to Rs. 2,00,000 and added specific heads for disfigurement and loss of marriage prospects

¶ 12-14

Regarding prosthetics, the Court calculated the necessity of seven replacements over the claimant's remaining life expectancy (35 years), factoring in a 10% inflation rate and annual maintenance costs

¶ 16-18