Non-pecuniary compensation for amputation must be liberal, reflecting the permanent and life-altering nature of functional disability.

The appellant/claimant filed an appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) vide award dated 10th October 2022

The MACT had awarded Rs. 26,87,390 with 9% interest per annum, calculating the claimant's income based on minimum wages for a skilled worker (Rs. 9,118)

The claimant, a 35-year-old transport vehicle driver, suffered 90% permanent disability in his lower limb, which the Tribunal treated as 100% functional disability

The appellant contended that his actual income was Rs. 20,000 per month and that the non-pecuniary damages awarded were inadequate

1. Whether the benchmark income of the injured should be enhanced based on his vocation as a commercial vehicle driver in the absence of documentary proof of income

2. Whether the compensation for non-pecuniary damages (pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and disfigurement) was adequate given the 100% functional disability and amputation

3. Whether compensation for "mental and physical shock" can be awarded separately from "pain and suffering"

The Court primarily relied on Chandra @ Chanda @ Chandraram v. Mukesh Kumar Yadav (2021 INSC 593), which establishes that in the absence of documentary evidence, courts must employ "guesswork" to assess the income of commercial drivers

For non-pecuniary damages, the Court applied the principles from K.S. Muralidhar v. R. Subbulakshmi (2024 SCC Online SC 3385) and Mohd. Sabeer v. U.P. SRTC (2023), which advocate for a liberal and realistic assessment of "pain and suffering" and "loss of amenities" to reflect the permanent rupture in a victim's life

The Court applied Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) to hold that mental and physical shock is subsumed under the category of pain and suffering

The Court observed that the appellant’s testimony regarding his occupation as a commercial driver was unshaken and supported by his driving license

Consequently, following the precedent in Chandra, the Court increased the assessed monthly income from Rs. 9,118 to Rs. 15,000

Regarding non-pecuniary losses, the Court found the Tribunal’s grant of Rs. 10,000 for pain and suffering and Rs. 50,000 for loss of amenities to be grossly inadequate

The Court reasoned that translating profound human loss into monetary terms is artificial but must be fair and sensitive to the victim's lifelong deprivation

Citing Mohd. Sabeer, the Court determined that for a 35-year-old driver facing amputation and total functional disability, the appropriate award for pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and disfigurement is Rs. 2,00,000 per head

the Court deleted the award for "mental and physical shock" as it is legally subsumed under "pain and suffering"

The Court directed the Insurance Company to deposit the enhanced amount within six weeks, with a specific direction to release a lump sum of Rs. 2,00,000 to the claimant and place the remainder in Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) as per the original Tribunal scheme