Insurer must pay compensation first and recover from the owner for learner-licence violations.

The claimant, a 40-year-old coolie, suffered an open fracture to his right leg in a road accident on 20 September 2012.

Following complications, his right leg was amputated below the knee.

The Tribunal awarded him ₹5,20,000, assessing whole-body disability at 33%, and held the vehicle’s owner—not the insurer—liable because the driver held only a learner’s licence and was not accompanied by a person holding a valid driving licence.

The claimant appealed, seeking enhanced compensation and an order requiring the insurer to pay, with a right to recover from the owner.

1. Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of disability and compensation for loss of future earning capacity and other heads required enhancement, including an award for prosthetic limbs.

2. Whether the insurer should be directed to satisfy the award first and recover the amount from the vehicle’s owner, notwithstanding the breach relating to the learner’s licence.

Under the Motor Vehicles Act, compensation must be just and reasonable, assessed with regard to the claimant’s injuries, disability, age, occupation, and resulting loss of earning capacity.

The Court relied on State of Haryana v. Jasbir Kaur, AIR 2003 SC 3696, for the principle that compensation for loss of limbs cannot be measured with mathematical exactitude.

It relied on Prahlad Sahai v. Haryana Roadways, AIR 2026 SC 2024, in considering compensation for prosthetic limbs and their replacement over the claimant’s expected remaining lifespan.

On the insurance issue, the Court applied the pay-and-recover approach, relying on M/s Chatha Service Station v. Lalmati Devi, AIR 2025 SC 2324: the insurer must pay the claimant and may thereafter recover the amount from the vehicle’s owner where the relevant policy breach is established.

The Court found that the claimant’s below-knee amputation was undisputed and that, as a coolie, he could no longer perform his previous occupation.

It therefore considered the Tribunal’s use of 33% whole-body disability inadequate for assessing loss of earning capacity, and adopted 65% disability, a monthly income of ₹7,000, 25% future prospects, and a multiplier of 15, assessing that head at ₹10,23,750.

Although the claimant had not proved the purchase of a prosthesis, the Court allowed ₹10,00,000 for the purchase and maintenance of prosthetic limbs, taking account of his remaining lifespan and the anticipated replacement period.

It also enhanced compensation for pain and suffering, laid-up-period income, attendant and related expenses, and loss of amenities.

As to liability, it held that the Tribunal’s finding concerning the learner’s licence did not justify absolving the insurer from paying the claimant; the insurer could pursue recovery against the owner.

The Court modified the Tribunal’s award and reassessed total compensation at ₹23,00,750, as against ₹5,20,000.

The enhanced amount carries interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition until realization, except for ₹10,00,000 awarded for prosthetic limbs, on which no interest is payable.

The insurer was directed to pay the compensation first and then recover it from the owner; release and deposit were to follow the Tribunal’s directions.