Claimant entitled to future prospects and revised multiplier despite permanent partial disability for just compensation.

On April 6, 2019, the 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Bilaspur, awarded ₹2,01,341 to the claimant, Sudarshan Banjare, for injuries sustained in an accident involving a vehicle (Auto No. C.G.-11/A.G.-8019).

The Insurance Company appealed (MAC No. 1325/2019) seeking exoneration from liability, alleging the vehicle lacked a valid permit.

Simultaneously, the claimant appealed (MAC No. 1402/2019) seeking enhancement of compensation, citing the Tribunal’s failure to award amounts for future prospects and other relevant heads.

1. Whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation despite the allegation that the offending vehicle lacked a valid permit.

2. Whether the claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation, specifically regarding future prospects and various conventional heads.

The Court applied the principles of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, regarding the burden of proof for policy violations and the assessment of "just compensation."

It relied on established judicial precedents for calculating loss of future income, specifically the inclusion of a 40% addition for "future prospects" for victims with permanent disability.

The court also followed the "multiplier method" based on the age of the victim (multiplier of 18 for age 23) as standardized in Sarla Verma v. DTC and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi.

Regarding the Insurance Company’s appeal, the Court found that although a general defense of policy violation (lack of permit/fitness) was pleaded, the Company failed to conduct an investigation or lead specific evidence to prove such a breach.

Consequently, the Tribunal’s finding that the insurer remained liable was upheld.

Regarding the claimant's appeal, the Court noted that the Tribunal failed to account for future prospects and certain conventional heads like loss of amenities and attendant charges.

The Court reassessed the monthly income at ₹6,000, added 40% for future prospects (totaling ₹1,00,800 per annum), applied a multiplier of 18, and calculated 20% permanent disability, resulting in a significantly higher award for loss of earning capacity.

The Court held that the Insurance Company was liable as it failed to prove the lack of a permit.

The total compensation was enhanced from ₹2,01,341 to ₹5,68,721.

The Court ordered the Insurance Company to deposit the additional amount of ₹3,67,380 with 6% interest per annum from the date of filing the claim.