Complete visual disability does not mandate 100% functional disability where residual earning opportunities remain.

The appeals arose from the Award dated 29 April 2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, in MACT No. 868/2021.

The claimant, Saurabh Kumar, sustained serious injuries in a road accident involving a U.P. Roadways bus bearing registration no. UP-81BT-0436, including complete visual disability and a fracture of the left leg.

The Tribunal had assessed the claimant’s functional disability at 80%, applied a monthly income of Rs.17,991/-, awarded compensation of Rs.64,05,332/- with interest at 9% per annum, and granted Rs.50,000/- towards attendant charges.

Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Delhi had territorial jurisdiction despite the accident having occurred in Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh and the claimant’s Aadhaar verification reflecting an Uttar Pradesh address?

Whether the claimant proved the involvement of the offending bus and rash and negligent driving on the applicable standard of proof?

Whether the claimant’s income ought to have been assessed on the basis of minimum wages applicable to a graduate rather than those applicable to a matriculate?

Whether the claimant’s functional disability should be assessed at 100% rather than 80% or 90%, considering his complete visual disability and leg fracture?

Whether the compensation awarded under the heads of attendant charges and other non-pecuniary losses required enhancement?

In motor accident claim proceedings, negligence and the involvement of the offending vehicle are assessed on the touchstone of the preponderance of probabilities, rather than the criminal standard of proof.

The Court relied on Ranjeet v. Abdul Kayam Neb, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 497, recognising the evidentiary significance of the testimony of an injured witness and the surrounding criminal-investigation material, including the FIR and charge-sheet.

For computation of loss of future earnings, the Court applied the established principles concerning future prospects, the appropriate multiplier, and functional disability, retaining 40% future prospects and the multiplier of 18.

The Court also considered the principles in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, (2020) 4 SCC 413 regarding attendant charges, but held that multiplier-based attendant compensation was not appropriate on the facts of this case and instead awarded a reasonable lump sum.

The Court rejected the jurisdictional objection because the claimant’s testimony established that he had been residing in Delhi since 2017, had attended coaching there, and was residing at Sriniwaspuri during 2019–20.

His testimony was corroborated by the coaching identification card and the Aadhaar card reflecting a Delhi address; the fact that his original Aadhaar had been issued in Uttar Pradesh did not displace the evidence of his Delhi residence.

On negligence, the claimant was himself an injured eyewitness and specifically identified the offending bus. The bus number appeared in the FIR lodged the following day, and the investigation culminated in an unchallenged charge-sheet. In the absence of contrary evidence, these circumstances satisfied the preponderance-of-probabilities standard.

The Court declined to apply graduate minimum wages because the claimant produced no reliable documentary proof that he was pursuing a recognised B.Sc. degree. The handwritten certificate relied upon did not establish the institution’s affiliation with Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar University, Agra; accordingly, the matriculate income assessed by the Tribunal was retained.

Although the claimant had suffered 100% visual disability and a leg fracture, the Court held that complete economic incapacity was not established. It enhanced functional disability from 80% to 90%, reasoning that some limited livelihood opportunities could remain despite the substantial disability.

For attendant charges, the Court found that the claimant’s visual disability did not materially impede mobility and therefore declined to calculate lifelong attendant expenses through the multiplier method. It substituted the Tribunal’s Rs.50,000/- award with a lump sum of Rs.10,00,000/-.

Functional disability was enhanced to 90%, attendant charges were increased to Rs.10,00,000/-, and total compensation was enhanced from Rs.64,05,332/- to Rs.78,99,380/-, with interest at 9% per annum.

The enhanced amount, together with accrued interest, was directed to be deposited within six weeks. Rs.2,00,000/- was to be released to the claimant, while the balance was to be placed in staggered fixed deposits of Rs.25,000/- each, with interest credited to his savings account.

Both appeals were disposed of in these terms, and pending applications were rendered infructuous.