Severe functional loss of both legs warrants compensation for loss of amenities despite continued employment.

On 28 September 2007, the claimant, an Engineer working as Assistant Manager (Development) with Tuflex India, suffered severe crush injuries to both legs in an accident.

Although there was no amputation, the injuries resulted in substantial functional impairment: the natural sole and heel of the right leg were lost and replaced by a flap, and the claimant was required to walk on his toes permanently.

The Tribunal nevertheless awarded Rs.1,58,140 towards loss of future income, along with compensation under other heads, totalling Rs.5,05,416.

The claimant appealed seeking enhancement.

Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the heads of loss of leave, pain and suffering, future medical expenses, and special diet, attendant and transportation charges required enhancement in light of the claimant’s serious bilateral leg injuries and prolonged absence from work?

Whether the claimant was entitled to a separate amount for loss of amenities arising from the permanent functional loss of both legs?

Whether the Tribunal’s award towards loss of future income should be disturbed when the claimant continued in employment and earned a higher income, but the insurer had not filed an appeal?

The Court applied the compensatory principles governing motor accident claims, under which damages must reasonably recompense proved pecuniary loss, pain and suffering, future medical requirements, attendant and incidental expenses, and loss of amenities resulting from permanent disability.

The Court treated the claimant’s functional disability and loss of normal use of both legs as relevant to compensation, notwithstanding the absence of physical amputation.

It also applied the appellate principle that an adverse component of an award need not be disturbed in the absence of a challenge by the opposing party; accordingly, the award for loss of future income was accepted despite the claimant’s continued employment and increased income because the Insurance Company had not appealed.

The Court found that the medical evidence demonstrated severe and permanent functional impairment of both legs, including difficulty with basic movements and the permanent loss of the natural sole and heel of the right leg.

Since the claimant had remained on leave for approximately three years and documentary evidence showed a loss of Rs.1,77,600, the Court substituted that amount for the Tribunal’s award of Rs.55,000 towards loss of leave.

Considering the crush injuries, major debridement, flap suturing, and hospitalisation exceeding 20 days, pain and suffering were enhanced from Rs.30,000 to Rs.2,00,000.

In view of the continuing need for medical treatment, Rs.2,00,000 was awarded towards future medical expenses.

The claimant’s prolonged incapacity and bilateral injuries justified enhancement of special diet, attendant and transportation expenses from Rs.20,000 to Rs.1,00,000.

Finally, because the injuries had effectively rendered both legs useless and substantially impaired the claimant’s ordinary life as an Engineer, the Court awarded Rs.5,00,000 for loss of amenities, a head omitted by the Tribunal.

The existing award for loss of future income was retained solely because it had not been challenged by the insurer.

The total compensation was enhanced from Rs.5,05,416 to Rs.11,77,600, resulting in an enhanced amount of Rs.6,72,184.

The enhanced compensation was directed to carry interest at 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition until payment, and the Insurance Company was granted ten weeks to deposit the amount.

The Registry was directed to return the record and proceedings to the Tribunal.