Functional disability is 100% for an amputed driver as right leg loss precludes vocational continuation.

On February 27, 2001, the appellant, a truck driver, was changing a tyre on the roadside when a luxury bus driven by respondent no. 1 at excessive speed dashed into the truck from behind

The bus rolled over the appellant’s leg, resulting in grievous injuries and the subsequent amputation of his right leg

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Vadodara, awarded Rs. 4,25,974/- in compensation, assuming a monthly income of Rs. 2,100/- and assessing functional disability at 80%, while also deducting 10% for self-negligence

The appellant challenged the award seeking enhancement of the quantum

1. Whether the learned Tribunal erred in assessing the appellant’s monthly income at Rs. 2,100/- in absence of cogent evidence, given his profession as a heavy vehicle driver.

2. Whether the functional disability should be assessed at 100% due to the amputation of a limb in a profession requiring physical operation of a vehicle.

3. Whether the appellant is entitled to compensation for the cost of an artificial limb and future medical maintenance despite not providing specific invoices.

The court applied Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act regarding just compensation.

It relied on Minu Rout v. Satya Pradyumna Mohapatra (2013) to benchmark a driver’s monthly income at Rs. 6,000/-

It applied National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) and Sidram v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance (2022) to grant 25% future prospects for a 47-year-old

Following Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011), the court held that functional disability must reflect the loss of earning capacity specifically relative to the claimant's vocation

Finally, it specialized in Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain v. Regional Manager, UPSRTC (2023) to award damages for artificial limbs and pain and suffering

The Court found the Tribunal’s assessment of income (Rs. 2,100/-) too low, as the appellant held a valid heavy vehicle license; thus, following Minu Rout, it was reassessed to Rs. 6,000/-

Regarding disability, the Court determined that while physical disability was 80%, the functional disability for a driver with an amputated leg is 100% because he cannot drive a truck

The Court rejected the Insurance Company's argument that the lack of receipts for an artificial limb precluded compensation, ruling that "ground realities" dictate an amputee requires either a limb or a full-time attendant to lead a normal life

Consequently, it enhanced the multiplier-based future loss and awarded substantial sums for pain, suffering, and loss of amenities based on the severity of the permanent impairment

The Court partly allowed the appeal, significantly increasing the compensation, granting an additional amount of Rs. 15,24,866/- over the original award, carrying interest at 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition, and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the additional amount within six weeks