P&H HC Raises Crash Compensation To ₹28.78 Lakh For 36-Year-Old Businessman With Leg Amputation, 75% Functional Disability

In brief

The question

Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of the claimant’s loss of income and compensation under the other heads was inadequate, and what amount constituted just compensation.

The court held

The appeal was allowed.

It also directed

Total compensation was enhanced to Rs. 28,78,000, comprising an enhancement of Rs. 21,72,000 over the Tribunal’s award.

Interest was enhanced to 9% per annum from the date of institution of the claim petition until realization; if the amount was not paid within three months, it would carry interest at 12% per annum thereafter, from expiry of that period.

The respondents remained jointly and severally liable, and amounts already paid were to be deducted.

01Facts

The claimant, aged 36, suffered an above-knee amputation of his left leg and a serious left-wrist injury in a motor-vehicle accident on 11 July 2005.

¶ 1–4

A Medical Board assessed his permanent disability at 86%.

¶ 1–4

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded him Rs. 7,06,000 with interest at 7.5% per annum, holding the respondents jointly and severally liable.

¶ 1–4

He appealed, seeking enhancement of compensation; negligence was not in dispute.

¶ 1–4, 9.2

02Issues

i.Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of the claimant’s loss of income and compensation under the other heads was inadequate, and what amount constituted just compensation.

¶ 4–5, 7–13

ii.Whether the interest awarded by the Tribunal should be enhanced.

¶ 14

03Law Applied

In personal-injury claims, compensation may include treatment and related expenses, past and future loss of earnings, future medical expenses, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities; awards for future loss, future medical expenses and loss of amenities require evidence appropriate to the injury (Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343).

¶ 8

Functional disability must be assessed in light of the claimant’s occupation and the effect of the injury on earning capacity.

¶ 9.2

The Court applied the future-prospects addition for a self-employed claimant below 40, as stated in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, and the age-based multiplier of 15 for a person aged 36–40, under Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121.

¶ 9.3–9.4

It also relied on Pappu Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar, 2020 INSC 553, concerning future earnings and future prospects for a claimant with disability; G Vivek v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2023 ACJ 585, concerning periodic replacement and maintenance of prosthetic limbs; and K. Murlidhar v. R. Subbulakshmi, 2024 INSC 886, on reasonable non-pecuniary compensation proportionate to the injuries and their effects.

¶ 9.2, 10, 12

Just compensation may exceed the amount claimed (Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh, (2003) 2 SCC 274).

¶ 13

04Reasoning

The Court assessed monthly income at Rs. 8,000, based on the claimant’s employment and tax returns, and found that he was unable to work for approximately 14½ months, producing past loss of income of Rs. 1,16,000.

¶ 9–9.1

Given the amputation, wrist impairment and the resulting inability to drive or perform repair work, it assessed functional disability at 75%; adding 40% future prospects and applying a multiplier of 15, it calculated future loss of earnings at Rs. 15,12,000.

¶ 9.2–9.4

It increased treatment and related expenses, allowed Rs. 2,50,000 for future prosthetic-limb replacements, and enhanced attendant charges, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities in view of the claimant’s continuing needs and the severity and lasting effects of his injuries.

¶ 10–12.1

The Court also found the Tribunal’s 7.5% interest rate inadequate and enhanced it to 9%.

¶ 14