Functional disability must reflect occupational impact; above-knee amputation justified assessing an agricultural worker’s disability at 60%.

On 16 January 2000, the appellant was travelling as a pillion rider on motorcycle No. GJ-5-AE-6085 when the motorcycle, allegedly driven rashly and negligently, struck a stone, causing him to fall and sustain grievous injuries.

The appellant, aged approximately 41 years and engaged in agricultural work, suffered multiple fractures and an above-knee amputation of his right leg.

His permanent physical disability was certified at 85% in respect of the right lower limb.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.5,82,500/- with interest at 9% per annum in M.A.C.P. No.913 of 2000 by judgment dated 12 October 2015.

The claimant appealed solely seeking enhancement of compensation on the ground of quantum.

Whether the Tribunal correctly assessed the claimant’s monthly income and whether future prospects ought to be added while determining future loss of income.

Whether the claimant’s functional disability was correctly assessed at 50%, or whether it required enhancement having regard to the above-knee amputation and his agricultural occupation.

Whether the compensation under pain and suffering, attendant charges, loss of amenities, and the cost and maintenance of a prosthetic limb required enhancement or separate awards.

The Court applied the principles governing just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, including assessment of loss of earning capacity, actual losses, medical expenses, non-pecuniary damages, and future treatment-related expenses.

Relying on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (16) SCC 680, and Sidram v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 INSC 1202, the Court held that 25% future prospects should be added for a claimant aged 41 years.

Applying Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343, the Court distinguished physical disability from functional disability and assessed the effect of the injury on the claimant’s actual earning capacity.

The multiplier of 14 applicable to the claimant’s age was applied in computing future loss of income.

The Court upheld the Tribunal’s assessment of monthly income at Rs.3,000/- because the claimant had not produced cogent evidence of his asserted agricultural income of Rs.1,00,000/- per annum; this assessment was already higher than the applicable minimum wage of Rs.1,900/- per month.

Since the claimant was 41 years old, the Court added 25% towards future prospects, increasing the notional monthly income to Rs.3,750/-.

Considering the above-knee amputation, the 85% physical disability certificate, and the adverse impact on his ability to continue agricultural work, the Court enhanced functional disability from 50% to 60%.

Applying the formula of Rs.3,750 × 60% × 12 × 14, it awarded Rs.3,78,000/- for future loss of income.

Medical expenses of Rs.2,42,500/-, actual loss of income of Rs.18,000/-, and Rs.20,000/- for special diet and transportation were maintained.

Pain, shock and suffering was enhanced from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-; separate awards of Rs.1,00,000/- for attendant charges, Rs.1,50,000/- for loss of amenities, and Rs.2,00,000/- for the prosthetic limb and its maintenance were granted.

The total compensation consequently amounted to Rs.12,08,500/-.

The total compensation was enhanced from Rs.5,82,500/- to Rs.12,08,500/-, resulting in additional compensation of Rs.6,26,000/-.

The additional amount was made payable with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization.

The Insurance Company was directed to deposit and satisfy the awarded amount within six weeks of receiving the order, after which the Tribunal was directed to disburse it to the claimant after due verification and deduction of any deficit court fee.

No order as to costs was made.