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

On 25 June 2007, the appellant, then 25 and pursuing an MBA after completing an Electrical Engineering degree, was injured when the bus in which he was travelling crashed into a road divider.

His left upper limb was amputated above the elbow; medical evidence assessed permanent physical impairment at 80%.

The Tribunal awarded Rs. 3,79,000 but made no award for loss of future earning capacity or future prospects, principally because the appellant later completed his MBA and obtained employment.

He appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement.

Sections 166 and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 require just compensation, and Section 173 provides for an appeal against a Tribunal’s award.

Under Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, physical disability cannot automatically be equated with loss of earning capacity; functional disability must be assessed in light of the claimant’s occupation and the injury’s practical effect on earning capacity.

Pappu Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar recognises that future prospects may be included in compensation for permanent disablement where justified.

The Court also relied on Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and National Insurance Co. v. Pranay Sethi for the multiplier and future-prospects framework, and on Mohd. Sabir v. Regional Manager, UPSRTC and Sandeep Khanuja v. Atul Dande for assessing the injury’s effect on earning capacity.

The Court held that post-accident employment and increased earnings were relevant but not conclusive: they did not, by themselves, establish that the amputation had caused no economic loss.

Given the permanent loss of the left arm, the appellant’s education and the resulting limitations on professional opportunities, it accepted 80% as his functional disability for this assessment.

In the absence of direct evidence of income at the accident date, it fixed notional monthly income at Rs. 5,000 and applied a 40% addition for future prospects.

It also enhanced pain and suffering and special-diet, nourishment and transportation awards, and awarded Rs. 1,00,000 for loss of matrimonial prospects.

The judgment contains apparent inconsistencies in its computation: although it records that the appellant was 25 and states that the multiplier required reconsideration, the final calculation uses a multiplier of 17; further, the table does not separately include the medical-expense and amenities awards that the judgment says are maintained.

The Court declared the appellant entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs. 10,88,400, with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition until realization, and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the enhanced amount within eight weeks, subject to credit for sums already paid or deposited.

The Tribunal’s award was modified accordingly.