Enhancement of motor accident compensation for amputation by applying minimum wages and future prospects.

On January 14, 1992, the appellant, an 18-year-old cleaner on a truck (Reg. No. GRX-3229), sustained serious injuries resulting in the amputation of his left arm due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Anand, in MACP No. 735 of 2006, awarded a lump-sum compensation of ₹15,000/- on June 18, 2022

The appellant challenged the quantum of compensation, citing the Tribunal's failure to consider future prospects, the minimum wage scale of 1992, and proper non-pecuniary damages

The Insurance Company contested the identity of the vehicle (citing a discrepancy between GRX-3229 and GRX-3239 in the policy) and the delay in restoration of the petition

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in awarding a lump-sum compensation instead of calculating future loss of income based on the multiplier method and future prospects

2. Whether the income assessed at ₹500/- per month was sustainable in view of the minimum wages prevalent at the time

3. Whether the Insurance Company could be absolved of liability due to a typographical error in the vehicle registration number in the insurance policy

The Court applied the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, specifically Section 173 regarding appeals

For the assessment of compensation, the Court relied on the multiplier system established in *Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.* (2009) 6 SCC 121

Regarding future prospects, the Court applied the principles from *National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi* (2017) ACJ 2700, which mandates a 40% addition for individuals below 40 years

The Court also took judicial notice of the Schedule of the Workmen's Compensation Act to assess functional disability for amputation

The Court found the Tribunal’s assessment of ₹500/- monthly income to be erroneously low, re-fixing it at ₹800/- per month based on 1992 minimum wages for unskilled workers

Applying the criteria from *Pranay Sethi*, the Court added 40% (₹320/-) for future prospects, totaling ₹1,120/- per month

Given the claimant’s age (18 years), a multiplier of 18 was applied to the 50% permanent disability (as per the Workmen's Compensation Act Schedule), resulting in a calculated future loss of income of ₹1,20,960/-

Regarding the Insurance Company's liability, the Court noted that a typographical error in the policy number (GRX-3239 vs GRX-3229) cannot defeat a third-party claim, especially since the insurer’s witness admitted the possibility of clerical error and the company failed to file a cross-appeal on liability

The respondent Insurance Company was directed to deposit the additional amount with interest, excluding the period from July 1, 2009, to October 21, 2021 (the period of delay in restoration), within four weeks

The Court affirmed that typographical errors in insurance policies do not negate the insurer's liability toward third parties