A Carpenter Who Cannot Stand Has Lost 100% of His Work: Supreme Court Triples Accident Compensation

Case at a Glance

The Supreme Court has raised the compensation of a 38-year-old carpenter whose right leg was amputated above the knee after a 2004 road accident from Rs 11,51,423 to Rs 35,95,923. It held that, although his medical disability was 70%, his functional disability as a carpenter was 100%, fixed his notional income at Rs 9,000 a month as a skilled worker, and awarded Rs 10,00,000 for a prosthetic leg.

On 9 November 2004 a Jeep allegedly driven rashly on the wrong side hit the appellant's motorcycle. He was taken to Himalayan Hospital, Dehradun, where his right leg was amputated above the knee, and remained in hospital for about 43 days. He claimed Rs 18,50,000 before the Claims Tribunal at Kotdwar.

On 2 March 2012 the Tribunal awarded Rs 4,77,823 with 4% interest, taking income at Rs 3,000 a month and disability at 70%. On 19 December 2019 the Uttarakhand High Court raised the award to Rs 11,51,423 with 6% interest, taking income at Rs 5,000, reducing the multiplier from 17 to 15 and keeping disability at 70%.

The Key Question Before the Court

Should a carpenter who lost a leg be compensated on the basis of his 70% medical disability, or on the basis of how far he can still do his work?

Medical Impairment Versus Functional Disability

Relying on Jagdish v. Mohan, (2018) 03 SC CK 0011, Laxman Mourya, (2011) 11 SC CK 0003, Neeta and Karamjit Singh, the Court treated a carpenter as a skilled worker and said “A skilled job would always have potentiality to fetch and earn higher income.” Noting the appellant's unrebutted evidence of earning Rs 8,000 to 10,000 a month, it fixed income at Rs 9,000. It kept the multiplier at 15 under Sarla Verma, (2009) 04 SC CK 0222 and added 40% future prospects under Pranay Sethi, (2017) 10 SC CK 0044.

Following Raj Kumar, (2010) 10 SC CK 0022, the Court held that loss of earning capacity, not the medical percentage, is the measure, and that “what matters is the extent by which the functions of an injured person suffers”. Relying on R. Halle, (2026) 03 SC CK 1433 and S. Ettiappan, it held that a carpenter who cannot stand unsupported or work without an attendant has 100% functional disability. Given his age and life expectancy, it also awarded Rs 10,00,000 for replacing and maintaining an artificial leg.

What the Court Actually Held

• Functional disability was assessed at 100%, and loss of future earnings at Rs 22,68,000.
• Total compensation was fixed at Rs 35,95,923, including Rs 10,00,000 for the prosthetic leg, Rs 1,00,000 for pain and suffering and Rs 50,000 each for attendant charges and loss of amenities.
• United India Insurance must deposit the balance of Rs 24,44,500 with 6% interest before the Claims Tribunal within six weeks.
• Interest runs from the date of filing of the claim until payment.

Why This Judgment Matters

• It reinforces that functional, not medical, disability drives loss of earning capacity.
• It recognises skilled manual trades as commanding higher notional income.
• It treats lifelong prosthetic costs as a substantial separate need.

What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?

For Claimants' Counsel

• Lead evidence on the claimant's actual work and what he can no longer do.
• Claim future costs of prosthetics, including replacement and maintenance.

For Insurers

• Minimum wage figures may not hold for skilled workers with credible evidence of earnings.
• A medical disability certificate is not the ceiling for functional loss.

Key Takeaways

Frequently Asked Questions

Because the Court found the appellant could no longer work as a carpenter: he cannot stand unsupported or work without an attendant.

Rs 9,000 a month, with 40% future prospects and a multiplier of 15.

Rs 10,00,000, described as the minimum for this head.

Conclusion