Supreme Court Enhances Compensation for Amputee Labourer in Motor Accident Case – Applies Minimum Wages Act, Recognizes 80% Functional Disability, and Includes Future Prospects

Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court of India allowed the appeal and significantly enhanced the compensation granted to the appellant, who suffered an amputation due to a motor accident. The Court found that both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) and the High Court of Madhya Pradesh had underestimated the appellant’s monthly income and functional disability.

The Supreme Court revised the monthly income to ₹6,850/-, based on minimum wages, and increased the functional disability to 80%, considering the appellant’s profession as a labourer. As a result, the final compensation was enhanced from ₹6,61,690/- (as awarded by the High Court) to ₹20,55,452/-.

The Court held that:

1. The appellant’s disability should be treated as 80% functional disability, considering his profession.
2. Income assessment should be based on the Minimum Wages Act, where no direct proof of income is available.
3. Future prospects should be included, leading to a 40% increase in the income estimation.
4. Pain, suffering, and additional costs such as medical expenses and special diet should be adequately compensated.

Thus, the Supreme Court significantly modified the compensation structure to ensure fair and just financial relief to the appellant.

Facts of the Case

• The accident occurred on September 25, 2016, at 8:45 p.m.
• The appellant, a 25-year-old labourer, was extracting soybean from a thresher machine attached to a tractor.
• The driver of the tractor (Respondent No.2) reversed the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, causing the appellant’s hand to be pulled into the thresher machine.
• The appellant suffered severe injuries to his right hand, shoulder, head, and near his ear.
• He was rushed to Sanyog Hospital, Indore, where his right hand had to be amputated below the elbow.

Following this:

• An FIR was lodged on October 4, 2016, against the driver under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 287 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
• The appellant filed a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking ₹20,00,000/- as compensation.
• He argued that he was the sole earning member of his family and, due to the amputation, he could no longer work as a labourer.
• At the time of the accident, he was earning ₹9,000/- per month.

Issues Before the Court

1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the High Court was inadequate?
2. Whether the appellant’s functional disability should be enhanced beyond 40% as determined by the High Court?
3. Whether the appellant’s monthly income should be reassessed based on the Minimum Wages Act?

Petitioner’s Arguments

The appellant challenged the low compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the High Court, citing the following grounds:

1. Underestimation of Functional Disability:
   • The permanent disability certificate issued by PW2 determined a 60% physical disability.
   • However, since the appellant was a manual labourer, the functional disability should be considered 100% as he could no longer perform his work.
   • The High Court had incorrectly fixed his disability at 40%, which was too low.
2. Incorrect Assessment of Income:
   • The Tribunal had assumed an income of ₹5,000/- per month, which was incorrect.
   • The appellant argued that the minimum wage in 2016 was ₹6,850/-, as per the Minimum Wages Act.
   • Since he was a daily wage labourer, his income should be based on minimum wages.
3. Non-consideration of Future Prospects:
   • The Tribunal and High Court did not consider future prospects, which is essential for determining fair compensation.
   • As per the Supreme Court’s ruling in Pranay Sethi, future earnings should include an additional 40% increase.
4. Medical Expenses and Pain & Suffering Not Properly Compensated:
   • The appellant also claimed that medical expenses, pain, and suffering were grossly undervalued.

Respondent’s Arguments

The insurance company and respondents defended the compensation awarded, arguing that:

1. The High Court had already increased the compensation from ₹3,76,090/- (awarded by MACT) to ₹6,61,690/-.
2. The functional disability was rightly determined at 40%, and there was no basis to increase it.
3. The Tribunal’s estimation of ₹5,000/- as the appellant’s income was fair since the appellant had not provided documentary proof of a higher income.
4. The total compensation awarded was reasonable and should not be disturbed.

Analysis of the Law

The Supreme Court examined several landmark judgments to decide the case:

1. Gurpreet Kaur & Ors. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. – Held that notifications under the Minimum Wages Act should be used when direct income proof is unavailable.
2. National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 – Established that future prospects should be added to income calculations.
3. Kajal v. Jagdish Chand (2020) 4 SCC 413 – Recognized medical expenses must be adequately compensated.
4. Sidram v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Ltd. (2023) 3 SCC 439 – Defined fair compensation for transportation and special diet costs.
5. K.S. Muralidhar v. R. Subbulakshmi (2024 SCC Online SC 3385) – Determined pain and suffering compensation guidelines.

Precedent Analysis

• The Minimum Wages Act was used to determine income.
• Functional disability was linked to actual workability, ensuring fair assessment.
• The Pranay Sethi formula for future prospects was applied, leading to a 40% increase in income calculations.

Court’s Reasoning

1. Income Calculation:
   • The Court accepted ₹6,850/- as the monthly income, based on the Minimum Wages Act.
2. Functional Disability:
   • The appellant’s right hand amputation meant he could no longer work as a labourer.
   • The Court increased functional disability to 80%.
3. Future Prospects:
   • The income was increased by 40% to ₹9,590/- per month.
4. Compensation Adjustments:
   • Medical expenses, pain, and suffering were revised accordingly.
   • Final compensation was set at ₹20,55,452/-.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, enhanced the compensation, and modified the High Court’s order as follows:

• MACT Award: ₹3,76,090/-
• High Court Award: ₹6,61,690/-
• Supreme Court Award: ₹20,55,452/-

Interest was to be paid at the rate awarded by the Tribunal.

Implications of the Judgment

1. Strengthens reliance on Minimum Wages Act in compensation cases.
2. Recognizes functional disability based on practical occupational impact.
3. Ensures fair compensation using future prospects formula.
4. Sets a precedent for fair compensation in amputation and disability cases.

This decision ensures just financial support for accident victims suffering permanent disabilities, particularly labourers and daily wage workers.

Also Read – Delhi High Court Upholds Film Producer’s Copyright Over Song “En Iniya Pon Nilave”: “Composer Cannot Grant License Once Rights Are Assigned; Defendants Must Pay ₹30 Lakh or Face Injunction for Unauthorized Recreation”