In a significant ruling on compensation for accident victims, the Supreme Court has substantially enhanced the compensation payable to a Uttarakhand carpenter who lost his right leg in a road accident nearly two decades ago. The Court held that while doctors assessed his disability at 70%, the impact on his livelihood as a carpenter amounted to 100% functional disability, entitling him to much higher compensation.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a road accident that occurred on November 9, 2004. Shankar Dutt, then 38 years old and working as a carpenter, was travelling on his motorcycle when a jeep allegedly came onto the wrong side of the road and collided with him. The accident caused severe injuries to his right leg.
After being admitted to a government hospital and later shifted to a hospital in Dehradun, doctors were compelled to amputate his right leg above the knee to save his life. He remained hospitalized for over six weeks and later claimed that the amputation left him unable to continue his carpentry work.
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal initially awarded compensation of ₹4.77 lakh. On appeal, the Uttarakhand High Court increased the amount to ₹11.51 lakh. Dissatisfied with the calculation, the claimant approached the Supreme Court seeking further enhancement.
Court’s Observations
A division bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice N.V. Anjaria emphasized that compensation in injury cases must reflect not only the medical disability but also the practical impact of the injury on a person's occupation and earning capacity.
The Court noted that carpentry is a skilled profession requiring manual dexterity and the ability to sit, squat, and move comfortably while working.
Observing the effect of the amputation on the claimant's occupation, the Court stated:
“The functional disability of the appellant-claimant has to be taken properly and reasonably at 100%.”
The bench explained that although the medical certificate assessed permanent disability at 70%, the claimant could no longer perform the essential functions of a carpenter. The Court observed that a carpenter cannot effectively carry out such work while standing and that the claimant required support even for routine activities.
The Court further held that the High Court had underestimated the claimant's earning capacity. Considering that he was a skilled worker and had stated that he earned between ₹8,000 and ₹10,000 per month before the accident, the Supreme Court fixed his notional monthly income at ₹9,000.
Compensation for Artificial Limb
A notable aspect of the judgment was the Court's recognition of long-term expenses associated with a prosthetic limb.
The bench observed that an artificial leg requires periodic replacement, repair, and maintenance throughout a person's lifetime. Since the claimant was only 38 years old at the time of the accident, the Court considered future expenses for prosthetic support while determining compensation.
“The appellant must be compensated in a manner and to the extent that he is able to live life in the future years almost in the same way as he was leading his life prior to the accident,” the Court observed.
Accordingly, ₹10 lakh was awarded towards the cost and maintenance of an artificial leg.
Final Decision
Recalculating the compensation under various heads, including loss of future earnings, prosthetic limb expenses, pain and suffering, attendant charges, transportation expenses, medical costs, and loss of amenities, the Supreme Court determined that the claimant was entitled to a total compensation of ₹35,95,923.
The Court directed that the amount would carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until payment. Since the High Court had already awarded ₹11.51 lakh, the insurer was directed to deposit the additional amount of ₹24.44 lakh with interest before the Claims Tribunal within six weeks.
The appeal was accordingly allowed.
Case Details
Case Title: Shankar Dutt v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 8714 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19227 of 2021)
Judges: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice N.V. Anjaria
Decision Date: June 24, 2026
-300x169.webp)
 Act, 1994 (PCPNDT Act)-300x169.webp)
