Functional disability and future prospects must be considered for ‘just compensation’ in amputation-related injury claims.

The appellant (claimant) sustained grievous injuries, including the amputation of his left leg below the ankle, a left femur fracture, and fractures of the clavicle and scapula, in a motor vehicle accident in 2005 involving an Innova car

Seeking compensation of Rs. 20 Lakhs, he filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi), Gondal, awarded Rs. 10,01,618/- with 9% interest, attributing 10% contributory negligence to the claimant and assessing his monthly income at Rs. 4,950/- (including agricultural income) with a 30% prospective rise

The claimant appealed for enhancement, challenging the 10% negligence deduction and the quantum of compensation under various heads

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in attributing 10% contributory negligence to the claimant in the absence of evidence

2. Whether the assessment of "just compensation" regarding future loss of income and non-pecuniary heads (pain, suffering, amenities) required enhancement based on the nature of the injuries

The Court applied Section 166 and 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

It relied on *National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi*, which established the 25% future prospects for self-employed individuals aged 40-50

The Court followed *Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar* regarding the objective assessment of functional disability and the need to make good the loss in a reasonable manner

It also referenced *State of Haryana v. Jasbir Kaur* regarding agricultural income/supervisory expenses

and *Surekha v. Santosh* regarding the court's power to award "just compensation" even in the absence of cross-objections

The Court first set aside the 10% contributory negligence, noting that the charge-sheet was filed solely against the Innova driver and the driver failed to testify, warranting an adverse inference

Regarding income, the Court upheld the base monthly income of Rs. 4,950/- but corrected the future prospects from 30% to 25% to align with *Pranay Sethi* given the claimant’s age of 41

While the claimant sought 90-100% functional disability, the Court upheld the 62% assessment, noting the claimant continued to receive profits from his family partnership firm despite his inability to perform manual labor

However, the Court significantly increased non-pecuniary damages, citing the medical expert's evidence on the recurring ulceration of the stump, the need for repeated prosthesis replacement, and the claimant’s inability to walk without support

The Court ordered the Insurance Company to deposit the difference of Rs. 5,29,530/- with 9% interest

Specifically, the Court increased awards for "Pain, Shock, and Suffering" to Rs. 1,50,000/-, "Loss of Amenities" to Rs. 1,50,000/-, "Artificial Limb" to Rs. 1,50,000/-, and "Attendant Charges" to Rs. 1,30,000/- to reflect the lifelong nature of the disability