The Supreme Court has substantially enhanced the compensation payable to a carpenter who lost his right leg in a road accident, holding that functional disability—not merely medical disability—must determine compensation where an injury destroys a person’s ability to pursue his profession.
The Bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice N.V. Anjaria enhanced the compensation from ₹11.51 lakh awarded by the Uttarakhand High Court to ₹35.95 lakh, together with 6% annual interest from the date of filing of the claim petition until payment.
The appellant, a 38-year-old carpenter, suffered grievous injuries in a motor vehicle accident on 9 November 2004when a jeep allegedly being driven rashly and negligently collided with his motorcycle. Due to the severity of the injuries, doctors were compelled to amputate his right leg above the knee after he was shifted to Himalayan Hospital, Dehradun.
Claiming that the amputation permanently deprived him of his livelihood as a carpenter, the claimant sought compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT). The Tribunal awarded ₹4.77 lakh, which was later enhanced by the Uttarakhand High Court to ₹11.51 lakh. Dissatisfied with the quantum, the claimant approached the Supreme Court seeking further enhancement.
The Supreme Court observed that compensation in motor accident cases cannot be determined merely by relying upon the percentage of physical disability certified by doctors.
The Court explained that while the medical board assessed the claimant’s permanent disability at 70%, the relevant consideration was the functional disability, namely the impact of the injury on the claimant’s earning capacity.
Since the claimant earned his livelihood as a carpenter—a skilled profession requiring prolonged sitting, squatting and physical mobility—the Court held that the amputation rendered him completely incapable of performing his occupation.
Accordingly, it held that his functional disability was 100%, even though the medical disability was only 70%.
The Bench devoted considerable discussion to the nature of carpentry as a skilled occupation.
Referring to earlier Supreme Court precedents, the Court observed that a carpenter is an artisan requiring specialised manual skill and technical expertise. Such work cannot be equated with unskilled labour.
Buy Now: Supreme Court Judgements E-Compilation – May 2026
Recognising this, the Court rejected the High Court’s assessment of the claimant’s monthly income at ₹5,000.
Considering the evidence on record and previous judicial precedents, the Supreme Court determined that a notional monthly income of ₹9,000 was appropriate for a skilled carpenter injured in the year 2004.
The Court reiterated that victims suffering permanent disability are entitled not only to compensation for present loss but also to future prospects.
Applying the principles laid down in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, the Court added 40% towards future prospects while computing future loss of income.
Using a multiplier of 15, the Court calculated the compensation for future loss of earning capacity at ₹22.68 lakh.
One of the most notable features of the judgment is the Court’s recognition that an amputee requires lifelong support through prosthetic limbs.
The Bench observed that an artificial leg requires periodic replacement and continuous maintenance throughout the victim’s remaining lifetime.
Considering the claimant’s age and expected lifespan, the Court awarded ₹10 lakh towards: purchase of prosthetic limbs, future replacement costs, and maintenance expenses.
The Court emphasised that while no amount can compensate for the loss of a limb, the law must attempt to restore the injured person as closely as possible to the position he would have occupied had the accident not occurred.
Apart from future loss of earnings, the Supreme Court granted compensation under several additional heads, including: ₹1 lakh towards pain, shock and suffering; ₹50,000 towards loss of amenities; ₹50,000 towards attendant charges; ₹40,000 towards nutrition and incidental expenses; ₹44,423 towards actual medical expenses; ₹30,000 towards transportation charges; and ₹13,500 towards loss of income during the treatment period.
These amounts, together with compensation for future earnings and prosthetic expenses, resulted in a total award of ₹35,95,923.
The Court underscored that the purpose of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act is not merely to reimburse medical expenses but to ensure that victims receive just, fair and reasonable compensation reflecting both pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses.
It reiterated that while medical disability indicates physical impairment, functional disability measures the actual impact of the injury on the victim’s profession, earning capacity and quality of life.
The Bench further observed that tribunals must carefully assess the claimant’s occupation and the practical consequences of the disability instead of mechanically applying the percentage mentioned in disability certificates.
The Supreme Court directed United India Insurance Company Ltd. to deposit the additional compensation of ₹24.44 lakh, over and above the amount already awarded by the High Court, along with 6% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition. The amount is to be deposited before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal within six weeks for disbursement to the claimant after due verification.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
