A mason’s 75% permanent disability warrants enhanced loss-of-earning-capacity compensation, including future prospects.

The claimant, a mason, sustained injuries to his right leg in a 2013 road accident involving an auto-rickshaw.

A toe on his right foot was amputated, and a Medical Board assessed his permanent disability at 75%.

He sought compensation of ₹30,00,000.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal found the auto-rickshaw driver negligent and awarded ₹13,17,325, rounded to ₹13,17,500, including ₹9,18,000 for loss of dependency, based on monthly income of ₹6,000.

The claimant appealed, seeking enhancement; negligence and liability were not reopened in the appeal.

Whether the claimant was entitled to enhanced compensation for the permanent disability sustained in the accident.

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for an appeal against an award of the Claims Tribunal.

In assessing compensation for loss of earning capacity, the Court considered the claimant’s age, occupation, income, disability and applicable multiplier.

It relied on Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company, (2014) 2 SCC 735, which had assessed a mason’s monthly income at ₹6,500 in an earlier-year accident; the Court applied that income benchmark to this claimant’s 2013 accident.

The Court also added 40% towards future prospects and applied a multiplier of 17, without identifying a separate authority for those calculations.

The Court found that a 75% disability, including the amputation of a toe, would substantially affect the claimant’s capacity to perform manual work as a mason.

It therefore considered the Tribunal’s monthly income assessment of ₹6,000 too low and fixed income at ₹6,500, drawing on Syed Sadiq.

Adding 40% for future prospects produced a monthly figure of ₹9,100; applying the multiplier of 17 and the 75% disability yielded ₹13,92,300 for loss of earning capacity.

The Court also increased pain and suffering from ₹25,000 to ₹1,00,000, while leaving the other heads unchanged.

The insurer was directed to deposit the modified award, after crediting any amount already deposited, within eight weeks of receiving the judgment.

The claimant was permitted to withdraw the amount in accordance with law; no order as to costs was made.