Permanent amputation and disability affecting physical labour justify assessing functional disability at 90%.

On 21 August 2005, the claimant was travelling in auto-rickshaw No. GJ-6-W-2938 when Jeep No. GJ-17-A-8169, allegedly driven rashly and negligently, collided with the auto-rickshaw.

The claimant sustained grievous injuries and an FIR was registered at Bodeli Police Station as C.R. No. 58/2005.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation with interest at 7% per annum from the date of filing until realization.

The claimant appealed, challenging the quantum of compensation, particularly the assessment of functional disability at 30%.

The claimant, aged 53 years at the time of the accident, had suffered amputation of the right lower limb above the knee and permanent disability in the left lower limb.

He had been employed as a daily wager and, owing to his physical incapacity, resigned from service on 31 October 2007.

Whether the Tribunal erred in assessing the claimant’s functional disability at 30%, and whether it should instead be assessed at 90% for calculating future loss of earning capacity?

Whether the compensation awarded under pain, shock and suffering; special diet, attendant and transportation expenses; loss of amenities; and prosthetic-limb expenses was inadequate?

What enhanced compensation and consequential interest and directions should be granted?

The Court applied the principle under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 that an injured claimant is entitled to just, fair and reasonable compensation for actual loss, future loss of earning capacity, pain and suffering, medical expenses, loss of amenities, attendant and transportation expenses, and other consequential needs.

It distinguished physical disability from functional disability, holding that the latter must be assessed with reference to the claimant’s occupation and the actual impact of the injuries on earning capacity.

The Court relied on the principles in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, concerning assessment of future prospects and conventional compensation, and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130, in support of appropriate compensation under conventional heads.

For future loss of income, the Court applied a multiplier of 11, corresponding to the claimant’s age, and calculated compensation by multiplying annual income by the multiplier and the percentage of functional disability.

The Court found that the Tribunal’s 30% assessment did not reflect the claimant’s actual loss of earning capacity.

The claimant had lost his right leg above the knee, suffered permanent disability in the left leg, worked as a daily wager, and was unable to perform physical labour, ultimately resigning from service.

Although the Medical Board’s certification concerned disability in the limbs, the evidence demonstrated a substantially greater impact on the claimant’s ability to earn; therefore, functional disability was fixed at 90%.

Applying the undisputed monthly income of Rs.10,000, multiplier of 11, and 90% disability, the Court awarded Rs.11,88,000 for future loss of income: Rs.10,000 × 12 × 11 × 90%.

The Court maintained the awards of Rs.2,00,000 for actual loss of income and Rs.1,00,000 for pain, shock and suffering.

It enhanced the amount for special diet, attendant charges and transportation from Rs.50,000 to Rs.1,00,000, considering the serious injuries, prolonged treatment, permanent disabilities and amputation.

It further awarded Rs.1,00,000 towards a prosthetic limb and its maintenance, and Rs.1,00,000 for loss of amenities of life, which the Tribunal had omitted despite the claimant’s continuing dependence and impaired ability to enjoy ordinary life.

The Court reassessed the claimant’s functional disability at 90% and fixed total compensation at Rs.18,58,000, including Rs.11,88,000 for future loss of income, Rs.2,00,000 for actual loss of income, Rs.1,00,000 for pain, shock and suffering, Rs.1,00,000 for loss of amenities, Rs.1,00,000 for special diet, attendant and transportation expenses, Rs.70,000 for medical expenses, and Rs.1,00,000 for a prosthetic limb and maintenance.

It directed payment of additional compensation of Rs.12,58,000 with interest at 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization.

The insurer was directed to deposit the additional amount with the Tribunal within four weeks, after which the Tribunal was to disburse the awarded amount, subject to verification and deduction of any deficit court fee.

No order as to costs was made.