Gujarat High Court awards ₹20.98 lakh to mason after truck crash led to leg amputation, treating his functional disability as 100%

On 6 April 2012, the claimant was riding a motorcycle with his son when a truck bearing registration No. GJ-23-W-6772, allegedly driven rashly and negligently while overtaking an auto-rickshaw from the wrong side, collided with the motorcycle.

The claimant sustained grievous injuries, including injuries to his left leg that ultimately resulted in amputation below the knee.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded ₹2,04,624 with interest at 7.5% per annum.

The claimant appealed, challenging the findings on contributory negligence and the adequacy of compensation, including the assessment of income, future prospects, functional disability, pain and suffering, attendant charges, prosthetic limb, and loss of amenities.

Whether the claimant was contributorily negligent to the extent of 10%, or whether the truck driver was solely responsible for the accident?

Whether the claimant’s monthly income was correctly assessed at ₹3,000, or should have been assessed by reference to the applicable minimum wages?

Whether the claimant was entitled to an addition towards future prospects and, considering the amputation and his occupation as a mason, whether his functional disability should be assessed at 100% for computing loss of future income?

Whether the compensation awarded under pain and suffering, attendant charges, prosthetic limb, and loss of amenities required enhancement or separate awards?

The Court applied the principles governing compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, including the requirement to award just compensation for proved pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss.

In the absence of cogent proof of actual income, income may be assessed on the basis of applicable minimum wages.

Relying on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, and Sidram v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2023) 3 SCC 439, the Court held that 40% may be added towards future prospects for a claimant aged about 30 years.

Under Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343, the assessment of functional disability must reflect the impact of the physical disability on the claimant’s actual occupation and earning capacity, and is not necessarily confined to the percentage of medical disability.

The Court also applied the multiplier method, using multiplier 17 for the claimant’s age.

The Court accepted the claimant’s account because it was supported by the FIR and panchnama, while the truck driver, who had not filed a written statement or entered the witness-box, failed to controvert it.

Accordingly, the Tribunal erred in attributing 10% negligence to the claimant, and the truck driver was held solely negligent.

Since the claimant’s income as a mason was not proved by documentary or other cogent evidence, the Court adopted the applicable minimum wage for a skilled worker—₹4,980 per month—and rounded it to ₹5,000.

It then added 40% for future prospects, producing a monthly income of ₹7,000.

Although the parties had consented to considering medical disability at 28%, the claimant’s left-leg amputation prevented him from continuing his work as a mason.

Applying the functional-disability principle in Raj Kumar, the Court assessed his loss of earning capacity at 100% and calculated future loss of income at ₹14,28,000 (₹7,000 × 12 × 17).

The Court further enhanced pain and suffering to ₹1,50,000, awarded ₹1,00,000 for attendant charges, and granted ₹2,00,000 each for a prosthetic limb and loss of amenities, while maintaining the amounts for medical expenses, special diet, and transportation.

The finding of 10% contributory negligence was set aside, and the truck driver was held solely responsible for the accident.

Total compensation was enhanced to ₹20,98,000, comprising ₹14,28,000 for future loss of income, ₹1,50,000 for pain, shock and suffering, ₹10,000 for medical expenses, ₹10,000 for special diet and transportation, ₹1,00,000 for attendant charges, ₹2,00,000 for a prosthetic limb, and ₹2,00,000 for loss of amenities.

After deducting the Tribunal’s award of ₹2,04,624, the claimant became entitled to an additional ₹18,93,376, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization.

The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the additional compensation and interest within six weeks, after which the Tribunal was to disburse the amount subject to verification and deduction of any deficit court fees.