Court Upholds Separate Compensation for Loss of Foetus and Enhances Disability Assessment for Permanent Government Employees

The Appellant, a 41-year-old teacher at an SDMC Primary School, sustained grievous injuries on December 6, 2018, after being hit by an offending RTV.

She suffered 84% permanent disability in both lower limbs and lost a six-month-old foetus due to the accident.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded ₹40,91,841/- compensation, assessing functional disability at only 10% because the Appellant remained employed and had a pre-existing 40% disability (dwarfism).

The Appellant sought enhancement on grounds of improper assessment of functional disability, inadequate future prospects, low attendant charges, and insufficient compensation for the loss of the foetus.

1. Whether the functional disability should be enhanced despite the Appellant continuing in her employment as a teacher?

2. Whether the compensation for loss of foetus was adequate and if a separate claim was required for the same?

3. Whether the Appellant is entitled to attendant charges based on minimum wages?

4. How the loss of future income should be calculated for a person in permanent employment who suffers no immediate reduction in salary?

The Court applied the principles of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) to determine functional disability based on the claimant's ability to lead a regular life and pursue a career.

Future prospects were guided by National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017), fixing increments at 30% for permanent employees aged 40-50.

Regarding the loss of a foetus, the Court relied on Prakash v. Arun Kumar Saini (2010) and Shiv Kumar v. Gainda Lal (2022), which recognize a foetus as a "person" for damage claims and allow parents to claim for emotional distress.

For salaried individuals, the Court applied Govind Singh Mauni v. Tej Bhan (2026) to account for "loss of potentiality" and promotional avenues post-retirement.

The Court rejected the Tribunal’s 10% functional disability assessment, noting that teaching requires significant mobility and the pre-existing dwarfism was irrelevant to the new lower-limb injuries; it enhanced the functional disability to 60%.

While the Appellant retained her job, the Court recognized she would suffer from reduced promotional prospects and a total loss of earning potential post-retirement (at age 60), applying a multiplier of 9 for the post-retirement period.

On the loss of the foetus, the Court dismissed the insurer’s plea for a separate claim, ruling that even under a personal injury head, the mother is entitled to substantial compensation for emotional trauma and the loss of future child-bearing capacity.

Attendant charges were revised to align with the minimum wages of an unskilled worker (₹13,896/-) rather than a lump sum, given the severity of the 84% disability.

It held that: (i) functional disability is 60%; (ii) future prospects are 30%; (iii) loss of foetus compensation is increased to ₹7,50,000/-; and (iv) loss of future income must factor in post-retirement potentiality using a multiplier of 9.

The Court directed the deposit of the enhanced amount within four weeks, with specific instructions for immediate release of ₹3,00,000/- and the remainder to be structured in FDRs.