Continued employment does not bar compensation for future loss of earning capacity from permanent disability.

On 13 August 2011, the appellant, employed as a conductor in GSRTC bus No. GJ-18-Y-3471, was injured when the bus collided with a stationary truck while travelling between Panchasara and Panava.

The accident was attributed to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver.

The appellant sustained grievous injuries resulting in amputation of his left leg and was assessed as having 70% functional disability.

In M.A.C.P. No.104 of 2018, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vanthli, awarded ₹4,69,000 with interest at 8% per annum from the date of the claim petition until realization.

The claimant appealed, seeking enhancement for future loss of income, pain and suffering, future artificial-limb expenses, and loss of amenities.

1. Whether the claimant was entitled to compensation for future loss of income despite continuing in service and receiving his salary after the accident?

2. Whether the claimant was entitled to enhancement under the heads of future prospects, pain, shock and suffering, future cost of an artificial leg, and loss of amenities of life?

3. What was the appropriate enhanced compensation and against which respondent was it payable?

The Court applied the principles governing assessment of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, including compensation for permanent functional disability and loss of future earning capacity.

Relying on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, Sidram v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., and Sandeep Khanuja v. Atul Dande, it held that 30% must be added to the claimant’s income towards future prospects.

Relying on Soni Sharma v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., the Court held that continued employment or receipt of salary does not, by itself, negate loss of earning capacity or promotional prospects.

It further relied on Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain v. Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation for awarding just compensation for pain, shock and suffering, future prosthetic-limb expenses, and loss of amenities arising from amputation and permanent disability.

The Court accepted the claimant’s proved monthly income of ₹21,300 and added 30% for future prospects, resulting in a monthly income of ₹27,691.

Although the claimant continued working for GSRTC and continued receiving his salary, the Court held, following Soni Sharma, that such continuation did not eliminate the diminution in earning capacity caused by the 70% functional disability.

Applying the multiplier stated in the judgment as 30, the Court calculated future loss of income at ₹30,23,904.

In view of the amputation and permanent disability, it enhanced pain and suffering from ₹25,000 to ₹1,50,000, awarded ₹3,00,000 towards the future cost of an artificial leg, and granted ₹2,00,000 for loss of amenities of life.

The existing awards of ₹4,19,000 for medical expenses and ₹25,000 for transportation, special diet and attendant charges were left undisturbed.

The total compensation was enhanced from ₹4,69,000 to ₹41,17,904, resulting in additional compensation of ₹36,48,904.

The enhanced amount was directed to carry interest at 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization.

Respondent No.2, GSRTC, was directed to deposit the additional compensation within four weeks; the insurer remained exonerated in accordance with the Tribunal’s award.

No order as to costs was made.