Delhi High Court raises compensation to ₹55.6 lakh for amputee labourer, including future prosthetic-limb replacements and maintenance

The appellant, a 25-year-old labourer, sustained grievous injuries on 16 October 2010 when the truck in which he was travelling collided with a stationary tractor-trolley due to rash and negligent driving.

He suffered amputation/disarticulation of the left thigh and fractures of both bones of the left leg, resulting in 60% permanent physical disability.

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dwarka Courts, assessed his income at the minimum wage for an unskilled worker, applied 25% functional disability, and awarded Rs.11,45,600 with interest at 7.5% per annum by award dated 21 April 2025.

The claimant appealed seeking enhancement on account of income, functional disability, medical expenses, non-pecuniary damages, and the cost and maintenance of prosthetic limbs.

Whether the Tribunal erred in assessing the appellant’s monthly income on the basis of minimum wages rather than his asserted income of Rs.10,000 per month.

Whether the appellant’s functional disability ought to be assessed at 75% or 100%, instead of 25%, considering the amputation and his occupation as a labourer.

Whether the compensation for medical expenses, conveyance, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and other non-pecuniary heads required enhancement.

Whether further compensation was payable for replacement and maintenance of the prosthetic limb over the appellant’s lifetime.

The Court applied the principles governing assessment of just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, including determination of proved or reasonably established income, functional disability, future prospects, multiplier-based loss of future earnings, and compensation under pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads.

It relied on M. Paramesh v. VRL Logistics Ltd., 2026 INSC 655, for the principle that functional disability must reflect the impact of the injury on the claimant’s actual vocation and may be assessed at 100% where the vocation is completely affected.

It further relied on Mohd Sabeer alias Shabir Hussain v. Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1701, for considering a life expectancy of 70 years and periodic replacement of prosthetic limbs every five to seven years.

Prahalad Sahay v. Haryana Roadways, 2026 INSC 396, was applied for awarding maintenance expenses of Rs.15,000 per annum for each five-year block.

The Court sustained the minimum-wage assessment because the appellant produced neither documentary proof of earning Rs.10,000 per month nor a witness from his employer.

However, applying the functional-disability principle in M. Paramesh, it held that amputation of the left thigh substantially prevented the appellant from continuing as a labourer, even with a prosthetic limb; accordingly, functional disability was enhanced from 25% to 75%, while recognising that he might undertake less physically demanding work.

The Court estimated medical expenses at Rs.1,00,000 despite several bills being in the names of relatives, since the evidence showed prolonged treatment and the likely incurrence of expenses on medicines, consumables, and incidental items.

It enhanced conveyance, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities to Rs.50,000, Rs.1,50,000, and Rs.1,50,000 respectively, while retaining the awards for special diet, attendant charges, mental and physical shock, and disfigurement.

Applying the prosthetic-limb precedents, it awarded Rs.4,00,000 for each of eight future replacements and Rs.75,000 for maintenance for each of five five-year blocks, totalling Rs.35,75,000.

The enhanced amount was directed to be deposited before the MACT within four weeks; Rs.2,00,000 was to be released to the claimant and the balance placed in staggered FDRs.

A separate sum of Rs.35,75,000 for future prosthetic limbs and maintenance was directed to be deposited within six weeks, kept in an interest-bearing FDR, and released only against verified original invoices and proof of payment from an authorised and reputed vendor.

The appeal was disposed of with these directions.