01Facts
The claimant, a minor, was injured in a road accident on 17 April 2021 when a Tata Tipper lorry struck him while he was standing by the road after getting down from a mini truck.
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 3He sustained severe injuries to his left hand, which was amputated; he was 10 years old at the time of the accident.
pp. 3–4, 8 · ¶ 3, 13The Tribunal awarded him Rs. 18,35,000.
pp. 5–6 · ¶ 5–7Dissatisfied with the award, the claimant appealed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking enhancement, including compensation for loss of future earning capacity.
pp. 2, 5–6 · ¶ 1, 5–702Issues
i.1. Whether the claimant was entitled to enhancement of compensation, including compensation for loss of future earning capacity arising from his amputation.
p. 6 · ¶ 903Law Applied
Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for an appeal against an award of the Claims Tribunal.
p. 2 · ¶ 1Relying on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, the Court applied a multiplier of 15.
p. 8 · ¶ 13Relying on Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Anr., 2025 INSC 1070, it assessed the minor claimant’s income by reference to the income of a skilled labourer and added future prospects.
p. 5, 8 · ¶ 7, 13The Court also treated 60% as the appropriate disability figure for the left upper limb, referring to the Employees’ Compensation Act benchmark for amputation below the tip of the olecranon.
pp. 7–8 · ¶ 12Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173
04Reasoning
The Court accepted the doctor’s evidence that the claimant had 70% disability of the left upper limb but upheld the Tribunal’s assessment of 60%, applying the stated amputation benchmark.
pp. 7–8 · ¶ 11–12Given the claimant’s age and permanent amputation, it assessed his income using the applicable skilled-worker minimum wage, added 40% future prospects, and applied the multiplier of 15 and 60% disability to calculate loss of future earning capacity at Rs. 20,91,897.
p. 8 · ¶ 13–14It otherwise revised or retained the non-pecuniary awards, reducing amounts for pain and suffering, parents’ agony, marriage prospects and attendant charges, and disallowing a separate award for shock and deprivation already covered by loss of future amenities.
pp. 9–11 · ¶ 15–1605Holding
The Court answered the enhancement issue in the affirmative and partly allowed the appeal.
pp. 11–12 · ¶ 18It modified the award to grant total compensation of Rs. 26,31,897, compared with the Tribunal’s Rs. 18,35,000, with interest at 6% per annum from the petition date until realization, excluding the delayed period of 221 days.
pp. 11–12 · ¶ 18The insurer was directed to deposit the compensation with accrued interest within eight weeks; disbursement and deposit were left to the Tribunal’s order.
pp. 11–12 · ¶ 18Original Court PDF
MADESHAvsB M PUTTARAJU
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
