The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Mumbai has awarded ₹1.25 crore to a 31-year-old mechanic who underwent a right transfemoral amputation following a road accident, after finding that the injury had resulted in a complete loss of earning capacity in his established occupation.
In a separate case, the tribunal awarded ₹41.08 lakh to a professional deep-sea diver who sustained a sacropelvic fracture and was assessed as having a 30% functional disability.
Together, the two awards total approximately ₹1.67 crore, according to a report by the Free Press Journal.
The cases illustrate a crucial principle in disability compensation: the percentage stated on a medical disability certificate does not always reflect the true effect of an injury on a person’s livelihood.
Mechanic sustained severe lower-limb injuries
Rafik Rais Idrisi was travelling in an autorickshaw in Ghatkopar, Mumbai, on 13 October 2024 when it collided with another vehicle near Narayan Nagar.
He was initially taken to Rajawadi Hospital and later received treatment at Hiranandani Hospital and KEM Hospital.
His injuries reportedly included a Grade 3C compound fracture of the right femoral shaft and a fracture of the right fibula. The severity of the trauma ultimately resulted in an above-knee amputation of his right leg.
Before the accident, Idrisi worked as a mechanic for Metro Waste Handling Pvt Ltd and earned approximately ₹40,000 per month. His September 2024 earnings, including regular additional-work payments and conveyance, were assessed by the tribunal at ₹39,437.
The medical board certified his permanent disability at 80%. However, the tribunal considered the physical demands of his occupation and concluded that the injury represented 100% occupational disability.
Medical disability and earning capacity are different
A medical disability percentage describes impairment according to prescribed assessment criteria. Functional or occupational disability examines how that impairment affects the particular person’s ability to work and participate in daily life.
The distinction is especially important in physically demanding occupations.
A transfemoral amputee may regain substantial mobility with appropriate prosthetic rehabilitation, but this does not mean that every person can return safely to the same work. A mechanic may need to:
- Stand for extended periods
- Kneel, squat or work close to the ground
- Climb into or beneath vehicles
- Carry tools and components
- Maintain balance on uneven or slippery surfaces
- Respond quickly around moving machinery
- Work in confined spaces
- Perform tasks without using walking aids
The functional effect of an above-knee amputation on such work may be much greater than its numerical medical disability rating suggests.
Conversely, the same amputation may affect a predominantly seated occupation differently. This is why compensation assessments must consider the individual’s actual work rather than applying a disability percentage mechanically.
The Supreme Court explained this principle in Raj Kumar v Ajay Kumar, stating that tribunals should assess the effect of permanent disability on earning capacity rather than assuming that medical disability and economic loss are identical. The Supreme Court judgment remains an important reference in motor-accident compensation cases.
₹1.13 crore calculated for future income loss
The tribunal added 50% to Idrisi’s assessed income for future prospects and applied a multiplier of 16.
On that basis, it calculated approximately ₹1.13 crore for future loss of earning capacity. Further sums were awarded for medical expenses, conveyance, special diet, pain and suffering and other losses, bringing the total to ₹1,25,51,800.
The insurer, Shreeram General Insurance Company, was directed to pay the award with annual interest of 7.5% from the date on which the claim petition was filed until the amount is realised.
The insurer had alleged that the offending vehicle’s driver lacked a valid driving licence, fitness certificate and permit. The tribunal rejected that defence because supporting oral or documentary evidence was not produced.
Compensation must recognise lifetime prosthetic needs
The published report does not identify a separately itemised award for the future purchase, replacement and maintenance of Idrisi’s prosthesis.
This is an important consideration because an artificial limb is not a single lifetime purchase.
A person with a transfemoral amputation may require:
- A custom prosthetic socket
- Knee and foot components
- Liners, suspension systems and consumables
- Physiotherapy and gait training
- Socket adjustments as residual-limb volume changes
- Repairs and routine maintenance
- Replacement sockets
- Periodic replacement of major components
- Treatment for skin or musculoskeletal complications
- Review as work, mobility and health requirements change
Component selection also matters. A basic mechanical knee and a microprocessor-controlled knee have very different prices, functional characteristics and maintenance requirements. The clinically appropriate prescription must be based on the user’s needs, safety, environment and ability to access continuing support.
In January 2025, the Supreme Court awarded an additional ₹35 lakh to a young bilateral transtibial amputee specifically for future prosthetic replacement and maintenance. The Court recognised that prosthetic limbs require repair and periodic replacement rather than lasting for the user’s entire life. Read the Supreme Court order.
This reasoning is highly relevant whenever compensation is being calculated for a person with limb loss.
Deep-sea diver awarded ₹41.08 lakh
The tribunal’s second ruling involved Sukhbinder Singh Paramjit, who worked as a diving supervisor and deep-sea diver.
He was riding pillion on a motorcycle stopped at a traffic signal on Mumbai’s Western Express Highway in 2017 when a truck struck the motorcycle from behind.
Paramjit sustained a sacral or sacropelvic fracture, required prolonged bed rest and physiotherapy and was subsequently advised to undertake light duties. His functional disability was assessed at 30%.
The tribunal recognised that even a partial disability could have a substantial effect on a highly physical and specialised occupation such as deep-sea diving.
Paramjit claimed potential earnings of US$400 per day based on an employment offer received before the collision. The tribunal declined to rely on that figure because the evidence did not sufficiently establish that he had accepted the offer, joined the employer, completed a deployment or received the stated income.
Instead, it used his income-tax return, which recorded annual net professional or business income of ₹6,98,880—equivalent to ₹58,240 per month.
After adding 25% for future prospects and applying a multiplier of 14 and a 30% functional loss, the tribunal awarded ₹36,69,120 for loss of future earning capacity.
Additional compensation covered three months of lost income, medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, conveyance, special diet and incidental costs.
Rehabilitation and compensation must look beyond survival
Road-trauma care does not end when the patient leaves the operating theatre.
For someone who acquires a major disability, recovery may involve years of rehabilitation, repeated clinical intervention, employment disruption and changes to housing, transport and family responsibilities.
A fair compensation assessment should therefore consider:
- The individual’s actual occupation
- Realistic prospects of returning to that work
- Need for retraining or alternative employment
- Cost of prosthetic and rehabilitation services
- Future device replacement and maintenance
- Loss of independence and amenities
- Psychological consequences
- Continuing medical and travel expenses
The Mumbai awards demonstrate that two people with different injuries and disability percentages may experience very different economic effects because of the work they performed before the accident.
For India’s P&O community, the mechanic’s case also reinforces the need for detailed clinical evidence. A comprehensive prosthetic report can help courts understand that a device may improve mobility without erasing the functional, financial and occupational consequences of limb loss.
A prosthesis can restore opportunities, but it does not automatically return every amputee to the same physical capacity, occupation or economic position held before the accident.
- Free Press Journal: Mumbai MACT Awards ₹1.67 Crore to Two Accident Victims
- Supreme Court of India: Raj Kumar v Ajay Kumar
- Supreme Court of India: 2025 Prosthetic Replacement and Maintenance Award
- Ministry of Road Transport and Highways
[…] becoming a quiet but significant source of prosthetic demand and documentation. This case, like the ₹1.25 crore Mumbai award after an above-knee amputation and the Kerala High Court ruling on lifetime prosthetic costs, shows that the quality of a […]