Future prospects and functional disability for limb amputation must be considered in assessing just compensation.

On June 5, 2007, the appellant, aged 20, was working as a cleaner in an Eicher Tempo

Near the Ahmedabad-Mumbai Highway, the vehicle collided with a Tata Tempo, resulting in serious injuries to the appellant and the subsequent amputation of his left hand from the elbow

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Surat, awarded partial compensation in MACP No. 403 of 2015 via judgment dated October 6, 2021

Dissatisfied with the quantum—specifically the assessment of income, 50% functional disability, and lack of future prospects—the claimant preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in failing to add future prospects to the appellant's income and in the assessment of monthly income

2. Whether the assessment of 50% functional disability was appropriate given the appellant’s occupation as a cleaner and the amputation of his limb

3. Whether the compensation awarded under the heads of pain, shock, and suffering, and the omission of an award for an artificial limb, requires enhancement

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

It relied on Govind Yadav v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [2012(1) TAC 1 (SC)] to determine income based on minimum wages in the absence of documentary proof

Principles for calculating future prospects and multipliers were drawn from Sarla Verma v. DTC [2009 (6) SCC 121] and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017 ACJ 2700], establishing a 40% addition for a 20-year-old victim

Regarding disability, the Court followed Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar [(2011) 1 SCC 343], distinguishng physical impairment from functional disability/loss of earning capacity

Finally, Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh [(2003) 2 SCC 274] was cited to justify awarding compensation exceeding the original claim

The Court found the Tribunal’s assessment of Rs. 3,000 monthly income just, as it exceeded the prevailing minimum wage for unskilled labor (Rs. 2,700)

However, it held the Tribunal erred by omitting a 40% addition for future prospects required for a 20-year-old

Addressing disability, the Court noted that while the doctor assessed 65% physical impairment, the functional disability must be mapped to the claimant’s vocation

Despite the claimant’s plea for 100% disability, the Court upheld the 50% assessment because the claimant admitted in cross-examination that he could perform routine work and there was no total loss of earning potential

The Court further determined that the award for "Pain, Shock, and Suffering" was inadequate given the amputation and the claimant's youth, necessitating an increase from Rs. 25,000 to Rs. 1,50,000

It also identified a gap in the original award regarding the cost of an artificial limb, granting Rs. 1,00,000 for the same

The Court held that the appellant is entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 3,54,600 with proportionate interest and costs

The Insurance Companies were directed to deposit the additional sum within four weeks, and the Tribunal was instructed to deduct any deficit court fees on the enhanced amount prior to disbursement