Thresher Accident Cost Labourer His Right Hand; Chhattisgarh HC Assesses 70% Earning-Capacity Loss, Enhances Compensation

On 11 December 2019, while the appellant was feeding paddy into a thresher attached to a tractor engine, the machine allegedly was operated negligently by the driver, resulting in amputation of the appellant’s right hand below the elbow.

The appellant, then stated to be 35 years old, claimed that he worked as a labourer and in agriculture.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded ₹1,01,694, comprising medical expenses and pain and suffering, and held the owner and driver jointly and severally liable.

The claimant appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement.

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for an appeal against an award of the Claims Tribunal.

Under Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, the percentage of physical disability is not automatically equivalent to the percentage of whole-body disability or loss of earning capacity; functional disability must be assessed in light of the injury’s impact on the claimant’s work.

Sarnam Singh v. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. reiterates that earning-capacity loss depends on the nature of the injury and the claimant’s occupation.

A claimant with permanent disability may also receive an addition for future prospects, as stated in Sidram v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

The multiplier method in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation applies to the calculation of future loss of earnings.

The Court accepted that the claimant had been working as a labourer, relying in part on the FIR, but found insufficient evidence to establish his claimed agricultural income or monthly earnings of ₹10,000.

It assessed his income at ₹8,600 per month by reference to the applicable unskilled minimum-wage rate.

Given that the claimant’s right hand had been amputated and his work involved physical labour, the Court treated the 70% disability as a 70% loss of earning capacity.

It added 40% for future prospects, applied a multiplier of 16 for age 35, and calculated loss of income at ₹16,18,176.

It also awarded amounts for special diet, transportation and an attendant, while affirming the Tribunal’s medical-expense and pain-and-suffering awards.

The itemised calculation in paragraph 19 totals ₹17,69,870, and the Court stated that the additional compensation would carry interest at the rate awarded by the Tribunal; the remaining terms of the award were left intact.

The judgment contains an apparent inconsistency: paragraph 20 states that the claimant is entitled to ₹17,78,470, whereas the component amounts in paragraph 19 total ₹17,69,870. The judgment does not explain or reconcile the difference.