86% permanent disability treated as 100% loss of earning capacity for motor accident compensation assessment.

The claimant, a 29-year-old truck driver, sustained an 86% permanent disability following a motor vehicle accident involving a truck (Reg. No. CG-04/ZC-5483)

The 7th Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Raipur, via an award dated 17-09-2019, granted the claimant ₹7,36,000/- in compensation

The Tribunal calculated this based on a monthly income of ₹3,000/-, a multiplier of 17, and various sums for medical expenses, loss of amenities, and mental agony

Both the claimant (seeking enhancement) and the Insurance Company (seeking reduction) filed cross-appeals against the award

1. Whether the compensation awarded to the claimant by the MACT was inadequate and required enhancement?

2. Whether the compensation was excessive and should be reduced in accordance with the Second Schedule of Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988?

The Court considered Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the structured formula provided under the Second Schedule (prior to its amendment)

The Court also applied the principle that for the purpose of calculating loss of earning capacity, a high percentage of permanent disability (86%) can be rounded off to 100% when the injury effectively prevents the claimant from pursuing their vocation

The Court reviewed the Tribunal’s finding that the claimant suffered 86% permanent disability and upheld the decision to treat this as 100% disability for the purpose of calculating loss of income

The application of a multiplier of 17 based on the claimant's age (30 years) and the assessment of monthly income at ₹3,000/- (totaling ₹36,000/- per annum) was found to be correct

Regarding the Insurance Company’s contention that medical expenses should be capped at ₹15,000/- and mental agony awards reduced under the statutory schedule, the Court observed that while those specific heads appeared high relative to the Schedule, the overall award was not excessive

The Court specifically noted that because the appeals were being decided after a prior remand, the awarded amounts for medical expenses and loss of amenities were justifiable in the interest of justice

The Court held that the compensation was neither inadequate nor excessive under the circumstances

The parties were ordered to bear their own costs