Compensation for future income must reflect functional disability, not merely certified permanent physical disability.

The appellant, an advocate aged 41 years, sustained injuries when he was hit by a car while riding his scooter near the Central Administrative Tribunal building in New Delhi.

He was practising before the Patiala House Courts and the Supreme Court at the time of the accident.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala House Courts, awarded him compensation of ₹5,09,233 with interest at 7.5% per annum by award dated 07 October 2013.

The injured appellant sought enhancement on account of medical expenses, pain and suffering/loss of amenities, loss of income during treatment, future medical expenses, and loss of future income.

Medical evidence showed 5% permanent disability of the right upper limb and 20% functional disability assessed by PW-4, Dr. Hans U. Nagar.

The doctor also deposed that the appellant would require further treatment, including removal of the implant and bone grafting.

Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the heads of medical expenses, loss of income, future medical expenses, and loss of amenities required enhancement in light of the evidence on record?

Whether the appellant was entitled to compensation for loss of future income, considering the certified permanent disability and the higher functional disability affecting his right hand and professional work as an advocate?

Whether the rate of interest on the compensation should be enhanced from 7.5% to 8.5% per annum?

The Court applied the principles governing assessment of just and reasonable compensation under the law relating to motor accident claims, including reimbursement of proved medical expenses, compensation for pain and suffering and loss of amenities, actual loss of income during treatment, reasonably anticipated future medical expenses, and loss of future earning capacity arising from disability.

It distinguished physical/permanent disability from functional disability and recognised that the latter must be assessed in relation to the claimant’s occupation and the practical effect of the injury on his earning capacity.

The Court also applied the principle that interest may be awarded on the compensation from the date of filing of the claim petition, and enhanced the rate having regard to the prevailing fixed-deposit rates at the relevant time.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited in the judgment.

The Court accepted the medical bills placed on record and enhanced medical-treatment expenses from ₹1,10,097 to ₹2,05,697.

Having regard to the prolonged treatment, it extended the period for loss of income from four to six months, increasing that component from ₹73,136 to ₹1,09,704.

The evidence of PW-4 established the need for further treatment, including implant removal and bone grafting; accordingly, future medical expenses were increased from ₹50,000 to ₹1,50,000.

Although the permanent disability was certified at 5% in relation to the right upper limb, PW-4 assessed the appellant’s functional disability at 20%.

Since the injury affected the appellant’s right hand—his functional hand—and he worked as an advocate, the Court found that the disability materially impaired his ability to write and manage documentation, thereby affecting his future earning capacity.

Instead of applying a strictly mathematical computation, and considering the lapse of approximately 17 years since the accident, the Court awarded a lump sum of ₹5,00,000 for loss of future income.

It also enhanced compensation for loss of amenities from ₹50,000 to ₹1,00,000 and raised the rate of interest from 7.5% to 8.5% per annum.

The enhanced compensation amounted to ₹6,82,168.

The enhanced amount was directed to be deposited before the Tribunal within four weeks, together with interest at 8.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, and released to the appellant as a lump sum.

The Tribunal was further directed to recalculate interest on the originally awarded amount at 8.5% per annum and release any resulting excess amount.

Any amount already awarded but not released was also directed to be released to the appellant, and the appeal was accordingly disposed of.