Truck accident at 16 cost him his leg, livelihood. Over a decade later, man gets relief from Allahabad HC

For the past 10 years, a 32-year-old man who lost his leg as a teenager in a truck accident in 2009 has pursued a long-drawn legal battle for adequate compensation from the insurance company.

Finally, last week, the Allahabad High Court ruled in his favour.

In an order on January 8, the bench of Justice Sandeep Jain dismissed a plea by the New India Insurance Company that the man’s permanent disability was 60% and that he was not in any gainful employment at the time of the accident.

Taking the amputation of his leg as a permanent 100% functional disability, and considering him a “skilled workman” at the time of the accident, the court has ordered that compensation three times more than what was awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT)/Additional District Judge in 2015 be paid to him.

The Tribunal had ordered paying a compensation of Rs 5.03 lakh, along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum.

The High Court has modified the amount, enhancing it to Rs 16.59 lakh along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its actual payment, which is to be indemnified by the insurer of the offending truck.

According to details provided in the petition, the accident took place on March 29, 2009.

The man, then a 16-year-old working as a helper of a truck driver, was hit by a truck in UP’s Pratapgarh district and sustained serious injuries. His right leg had to be amputated from the knee; two little toes of the left foot were also amputated.

A medical board declared that the victim had suffered 60% permanent disability, and the Chief Medical Officer (CMO), Pratapgarh, issued a disability certificate.

The victim, however, submitted another certificate issued by the Department of Physiotherapy, B Y L Nair Charitable Hospital & T N M College, Bombay, which stated that he suffered 75% permanent disability in right lower limb due to right knee disarticulation and 5% permanent disability in left lower limb due to 4th-5th ray amputation — amounting to a total disability of 80%.

During the hearing, the man’s counsel argued that due to the amputation, the claimant was unable to do any manual labour and that it was a fit case where the Tribunal should have awarded compensation by taking functional disability of the claimant at 100%.

The counsel submitted that the claimant was also entitled to compensation for future prospects at the rate of 50%, in accordance with Rule 220-A of the UP Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998, but the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards it.

It was further submitted that since the claimant was about 16 years old, a multiplier of 18 was to be applied for assessing compensation. But the Tribunal applied a multiplier of 16, which requires enhancement.

The counsel also said the MACT awarded an inadequate amount of compensation towards non-pecuniary heads, which also require substantial enhancement.

On the other hand, the insurance company, through its counsel, submitted in court that the claimant allegedly suffered only 60% permanent disability, due to the injuries sustained in the accident, but it was considered to be 80% by the Tribunal only on the basis of a certificate issued by the physiotherapist, which was not at all admissible in evidence.

It was further submitted that the claimant was a minor who was not earning, but the Tribunal still assessed compensation by taking his monthly income at Rs 3,000 which is erroneous. With these submissions, it was prayed that the appeal be allowed and the compensation paid to the claimant be reduced.

After hearing appeals from New India Insurance Company Ltd and the claimant, the HC observed, “From the written statement filed by vehicle owner, it is evident that the claimant was working as a khalasi (helper) on his truck which involves physical labour. It is apparent that due to the amputation suffered by the claimant, he is unable to do any job involving physical labour… and, as such, there was 100% functional disability. The Tribunal has only assessed the functional disability at 80%, which requires enhancement.”

“Even if it is assumed that the claimant was only 16 years old and was not in any gainful employment at the time of the accident… he is entitled to get compensation on the basis that he was a skilled workman. Since the accident occurred on 29.03.2009, and… minimum wages of a skilled workman prevailing in… UP was about Rs 4,500 per month at the time of the accident… the claimant is entitled to get compensation on this basis,” the court stated in its order.

The court further said in the order, “Keeping in view the nature of injuries and amputation suffered by the claimant, compensation towards non-pecuniary heads also requires enhancement… since the Tribunal has only awarded… Rs 15,000 towards pain and suffering and Rs 1,000 towards special diet, which is grossly inadequate. The claimant is also entitled to compensation for loss of marriage prospects due to permanent disability.”

The court specified the heads, including total future loss due to 100% disability, and settled the compensation amount as Rs 14.58 lakh towards pain and suffering caused, Rs 1 lakh for loss of amenities, Rs 50,000 for loss of future marriage prospects and ordered to pay a total compensation of Rs 16,59,510.