Gujarat HC Adds Rs 51 Lakh To GMDC Driver’s Compensation, Finding Above-Knee Amputation Left Him 100% Functionally Disabled As A Driver

On 30 July 2010, the claimant, a GMDC driver returning home on his motorcycle, was involved in a collision with a Santro car and sustained injuries resulting in amputation of his left leg above the knee.

He claimed that the injury left him unable to continue his pre-accident occupation as a driver.

The MACT assessed his annual income at ₹4,49,256, his functional disability at 80%, and applied a multiplier of 5.

It found the claimant 25% contributorily negligent and awarded ₹18,14,138 after deduction for that negligence.

The insurer appealed, challenging the apportionment of negligence.

The claimant sought enhancement in the appeal despite having filed no separate appeal or cross-objection.

Sections 166 and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act require determination of just compensation, and the appellate court must ensure that the award is fair and reasonable.

Section 173 provides for an appeal against an award.

Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers an appellate court, where appropriate, to grant relief to a respondent who has filed no appeal or objection.

Surekha v. Santosh establishes that enhanced motor-accident compensation should not be denied merely because the claimant filed no cross-appeal.

Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar requires assessment of the effect of permanent disability on earning capacity, rather than mechanically equating medical disability with economic loss.

Under Pranay Sethi, future prospects and the multiplier are determined by reference to the claimant’s age and employment category; for a person aged 40–50 in permanent employment, the relevant addition is 30%.

The Court also relied on N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Karumai Ammal and M. Paramesh v. VRL Logistics Ltd. in emphasising adequate compensation and the need to assess functional disability in light of the claimant’s occupation.

The Court upheld the Tribunal’s 25:75 apportionment of negligence.

It considered the claimant’s testimony and the site panchnama, and noted that the Santro car driver had not entered the witness box; it found no basis to disturb the Tribunal’s reasoned assessment.

On compensation, the Court held that the absence of a cross-appeal did not prevent enhancement because the appellate court had a duty to award just compensation and could exercise its power under Order XLI Rule 33.

Given that the claimant had been employed as a driver and had lost his leg above the knee, the amputation prevented him from continuing his prior occupation; the Court therefore assessed functional disability at 100%, rather than 80%.

It rejected the multiplier of 5, applied multiplier 14 for the claimant’s age of 40–45, and added 30% for future prospects.

It then reassessed the other heads of compensation, including pain and suffering, an artificial limb and loss of amenities.

It recalculated total compensation at ₹92,31,462, deducted 25% for the claimant’s contributory negligence and then deducted the amount already awarded, granting an additional ₹51,09,459 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition until realisation.

The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced amount before the Tribunal within nine weeks; the Tribunal was directed to disburse the award in accordance with the judgment.