Continued overseas employment does not bar earning-capacity compensation, which may be assessed on net savings.

Prashanth Shetty sustained injuries when another motorcycle collided with his motorcycle on 28 April 2012.

He sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Tribunal found the accident was caused by the offending motorcycle’s rider and awarded him ₹4,93,670 with interest at 6% per annum.

The insurer appealed, arguing that the claimant’s continued employment in the UAE undermined the award for future loss of earning capacity; the claimant cross-appealed, seeking enhancement.

1. Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of compensation required modification, including on the insurer’s challenge to future loss of earning capacity and the claimant’s request for enhancement.

The claim was brought under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the appeals were under Section 173(1).

In assessing personal-injury compensation, the Court considered the claimant’s earning capacity, the functional effect of the disability in light of his occupation, and the appropriate multiplier.

It treated whole-body disability as generally derived from limb disability—ordinarily one-third for a lower limb, subject to variation based on the claimant’s avocation—and assessed loss of future earnings by applying the disability percentage and multiplier to income.

For overseas earnings, it considered net savings where evidence of those savings was absent and the claimant had returned to work.

The salary certificate showed earnings of 2,700 dirhams per month, but the Court reasoned that overseas earnings also involved substantial expenditure and, absent evidence of net savings, accepted the Tribunal’s estimated monthly income of ₹15,000 as a reasonable approximation of savings.

Given the claimant’s work as a ceramist and the restriction in right-knee flexion, it assessed loss of earning capacity at 8% and applied a multiplier of 17.

It also reassessed pain and suffering, medical and incidental expenses, laid-up-period loss, and loss of amenities.

Although its revised component-wise calculation totalled ₹4,86,266, below the Tribunal’s award, the Court considered the difference small and found no sufficient ground to alter the award.

It directed that the amount deposited in the insurer’s appeal be transmitted to the Tribunal for payment.