In a significant ruling on motor accident compensation, the Calcutta High Court has enhanced the compensation awarded to a court employee who lost his right leg in a road accident. Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury increased the amount from ₹3.55 lakh to ₹6 lakh, holding that compensation must account not only for loss of income but also for pain, future discomfort, and medical needs.
The judgment was delivered on February 24, 2026.
Background of the Case
The appeal was filed by Sudip Ranjan Dey, who had approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Read also:- Sikkim High Court Closes NHM Transfer Dispute After Amicable Settlement Between Employee
According to the case records Sudip Ranjan Dey, the accident occurred on September 13, 2009, around 1:00 am. Dey had got down at Siliguri More in Raiganj and was waiting by the side of the National Highway when a truck allegedly lost control and hit him. The impact was severe.
He was rushed to Raiganj District Hospital. Doctors had no option but to amputate his right leg above the knee.
At the time of the accident, Dey was 45 years old and employed in court service, earning ₹7,160 per month. He claimed that the accident left him permanently disabled, dependent on crutches, and facing mental trauma and financial strain.
In March 2012, the Tribunal awarded him ₹3.55 lakh with interest at 6% per annum. Dissatisfied with the amount, he moved the High Court seeking enhancement.
Arguments Before the Court
Counsel for the appellant argued that the compensation was “meagre” considering the nature of disability. It was submitted that the Tribunal failed to properly consider:
- Future cost of artificial limbs
- Future medical expenses
- Additional travel expenses due to disability
- Pain, suffering, and loss of normal life
Read also:- Patna High Court Dismisses Plea for Compensation Over Alleged Illegal Detention, Flags Lapses
On the other hand, the insurance company contended that the claimant had not lost his job and continued in service. Therefore, it argued, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was justified.
Medical Evidence and Disability Assessment
The Court examined the testimony of the Superintendent of Raiganj District Hospital, who had chaired the Medical Board that assessed the disability.
The Board certified that Dey suffered 85% permanent disability due to above-knee amputation. The witness clarified that the assessment was made according to official medical guidelines and there was no scope for variation.
Justice Chowdhury noted that the disability certificate had been issued by a duly constituted Medical Board and was supported by evidence.
Read also:- Madras High Court Rules Grandparents Not ‘Family’ for Stamp Duty Concession in Settlement Deeds
Court’s Observations
The High Court referred to principles laid down by the Supreme Court on assessing compensation in personal injury cases.
The Court observed that loss of earning capacity is not always equal to the percentage of physical disability. At the same time, it stressed that damages are not limited to salary loss alone.
In a crucial observation, the bench noted:
“Damages do not only mean pecuniary damage but also loss of amenity and disruption of normal functioning.”
The Court further stated that every part of the human body plays an essential role in normal life. When a limb is amputated, daily functioning and work efficiency are inevitably affected.
Justice Chowdhury remarked that a person has the right to work “comfortably without any pain on his body” and to perform duties smoothly. Even if employment continues, disability may affect future performance and professional reputation.
The Court rejected what it called a “narrow pedantic view” of compensation that focuses only on continued employment. Instead, it adopted a broader and more practical approach, taking into account:
- Permanent disability
- Future medical expenses
- Cost of artificial limbs over time
- Future discomfort
- Impact on work performance
Read also:- Gujarat HC Sends 17-Year-Old Girl to Mehsana Children Home After She Refuses to Return
The Decision
After evaluating all factors, the Court held that ₹6 lakh would be “just and reasonable” compensation.
The earlier award dated March 23, 2012, was modified. The insurance company has been directed to deposit ₹6,00,000 along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization.
The amount is to be deposited before the Registrar General of the High Court within eight weeks from communication of the order. The claimant will be entitled to withdraw the sum after completing necessary formalities.
With this modification, the appeal was disposed of.
Case Title: Sudip Ranjan Dey vs. The Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
Case No.: F.M.A. 1318 of 2016
Decision Date: February 24, 2026
