Leg amputation rendering a manual labourer unable to work constitutes 100% functional disability for compensation.

The appellant-claimant was travelling as a labourer in Tempo No. GJ8-T-4765 on 6 September 1998 when the tempo, allegedly driven at excessive speed, collided from behind with a stationary tractor-trolley.

The claimant sustained serious injuries, including amputation of a leg, and filed Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 241 of 1999 claiming ₹10,00,000 as compensation.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palanpur, awarded ₹2,10,876 by judgment dated 20 October 2012.

Aggrieved by the allegedly inadequate assessment under heads including loss of income, pain and suffering, medical expenses, attendant charges, transportation and prosthetic limb, the claimant preferred the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Court exercised appellate jurisdiction under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, applying the Act’s beneficial-objective principle that an injured claimant is entitled to “just and fair compensation,” assessed liberally, reasonably and equitably.

Relying on Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343, as quoted in M. Paramesh v. VRL Logistics Ltd., 2026 INSC 655, the Court held that compensation for future loss of earnings depends on the effect of permanent disability on earning capacity, rather than mechanically equating medical disability with economic loss; the Tribunal must consider the claimant’s avocation, age, activities rendered impossible, and ability to pursue alternative work.

The Court further applied the principle that where a physical injury renders a manual labourer incapable of continuing his occupation, the resulting functional loss may amount to 100% disability for purposes of future earning loss.

The Court found that the claimant was a labourer whose work was essentially physical and required the use and support of both legs.

Given the amputation and the resulting inability to continue such manual work, the Court treated the injury as causing 100% functional disability and held that the Tribunal’s award of actual loss of income did not adequately address the claimant’s permanent future loss of earning capacity.

Applying the principles in Raj Kumar and M. Paramesh, the Court recalculated compensation by awarding ₹5,14,080 for future loss of income, ₹2,50,000 for pain, shock and suffering, ₹50,000 for medical expenses, ₹3,00,000 towards special diet, attendant charges, transportation and a prosthetic leg, and ₹1,00,000 for loss of amenities, totalling ₹12,14,080.

After deducting the ₹2,10,876 already awarded, the Court determined the additional compensation at ₹10,03,204.

The claimant was held entitled to enhanced compensation of ₹10,03,204 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 enhanced amount within 12 weeks, although the ₹3,00,000 awarded for special diet, attendant charges, transportation and prosthetic leg would not carry interest.

The existing direction requiring respondent Nos. 1 and 2, on one hand, and respondent Nos. 4 and 5, on the other hand, to bear 50% each of the liability was maintained.

The Tribunal was directed to disburse the amount to the claimant after due verification and compliance with applicable court-fee requirements.