Courts may assess an agriculturist’s notional income and award compensation for loss of future earnings.

The appellant sustained injuries in a motor accident on 13 November 2001 when a car owned by Respondent No. 1 and insured by Respondent No. 2 collided with his motorcycle while he was standing near Wadhorli turn on the Nashik–Trimbak Road.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nashik, held the car driver negligent and awarded the appellant ₹1,57,850 under various heads, but denied compensation for loss of income or supervisory costs.

The appellant had suffered a fracture of the right tibia, proximal fibula and other injuries, and a disability certificate issued by the District Hospital assessed 30% permanent disability.

The Tribunal declined compensation for loss of income because the agricultural land was not in the appellant’s name, part of it was fallow, and he had produced no documentary proof of income or evidence that he cultivated or supervised the land.

The appellant challenged the denial of compensation for future earning loss before the High Court.

Whether the appellant, who claimed to be an agriculturist, had established an income forming the basis for compensation for loss of future earnings despite the absence of documentary proof of income and ownership of agricultural land?

Whether the appellant was entitled to compensation for loss of future earning capacity on the basis of functional disability, notwithstanding that the doctor who issued the disability certificate was not examined?

The Court applied the distinction between medical/physical disability and functional disability, holding that compensation for loss of earning capacity must reflect the effect of the injury on the claimant’s actual occupation.

It considered the principle in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343, that assessment of loss of future earning capacity requires consideration of functional disability and its impact on the claimant’s work.

It also relied on Vinayak s/o Bapu Ghegade v. Shivaji s/o Sadashiv Bandal, First Appeal No. 733 of 2024, Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, decided on 8 May 2025, in relation to appreciation of disability evidence where the disability certificate was not effectively challenged.

Further, relying on Jagdish Narayan v. Karan Singh, Civil Appeal arising from SLP (C) No. 1894 of 2024, decided on 7 July 2026, the Court applied the principle of notional income where the claimant’s actual income could not be proved, and assessed income on a reasonable basis.

The Court also applied future prospects and the appropriate multiplier for computing loss of future income.

The High Court found that although the disability certificate assessed 30% permanent disability, the evidence justified assessment of 20% functional disability because shortening of the right leg would interfere with the appellant’s ability to perform agricultural work.

The absence of the certifying doctor’s testimony was not treated as fatal because the disability certificate had not been challenged in cross-examination and the appellant’s evidence was consistent with the nature of his injury.

On income, the Court held that the Tribunal had erred in completely rejecting the claim merely because the agricultural land stood in another person’s name.

Considering that the appellant was the son of the landowner and would have performed agricultural work on lands where crops were cultivated, the Court adopted a notional monthly income of ₹6,000.

It then applied 20% future prospects and a multiplier of 16, computing the enhanced amount as ₹72,550 after accounting for the compensation already awarded.

The High Court held that the appellant was entitled to compensation for loss of future earning capacity based on 20% functional disability and a notional monthly income of ₹6,000.

The respondents were directed to pay an enhanced amount of ₹72,550, with interest at 7.5% per annum, within twelve weeks from the date of the order.

The appellant was directed to pay the additional court fee before the Tribunal.