Enhancement of compensation through 40% future prospects and non-pecuniary awards for loss of marriage prospects and amenities.

On the night of March 27-28, 2013, the appellants, Ravinder Kumar and Sumit Kumar, were traveling on a motorcycle when they were hit by an offending vehicle (HR-10-S-8855) driven rashly and negligently by Respondent No. 1.

Both appellants sustained grievous injuries leading to permanent physical disabilities: Ravinder suffered 50% disability in his right lower limb due to hip arthroplasty, and Sumit suffered 45% disability in his right lower limb.

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded compensation of ₹8,69,732 to Ravinder and ₹10,85,017 to Sumit, assessing their functional disabilities at 25% and 22% respectively.

The appellants moved the High Court seeking enhancement of compensation, citing the lack of "future prospects" and inadequate awards under non-pecuniary heads.

Whether the functional disability assessed by the MACT was proportionate to the medical evidence and the claimants' vocations.

Whether the claimants are entitled to "future prospects" in the computation of loss of future earnings.

Whether the compensation under non-pecuniary heads, specifically loss of amenities and marriage prospects, requires enhancement.

The Court primarily applied Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 regarding appeals against awards.

It relied on the landmark precedent of *Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343*, which established that Tribunals must assess the actual impact of permanent disability on the claimant’s earning capacity (functional disability) rather than relying solely on medical percentages.

Regarding the calculation of future loss of income, the Court applied *National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680*, which mandates the addition of "future prospects" (40% for individuals under 40 years) to the established income.

The Court examined the medical certificates and testimonies, noting that while the physical disabilities were 50% and 45% for the limbs, the injuries were "non-progressive".

Applying *Raj Kumar*, the Court upheld the MACT’s reduction of functional disability to 25% and 22% for the whole body, noting that the claimants failed to produce evidence showing their livelihoods were completely or substantially impeded.

However, the Court found the MACT erred by not granting "future prospects."

Given the claimants were aged 20 and 23, it added a 40% increase to their income levels.

Furthermore, the Court determined that the MACT had overlooked non-pecuniary damages.

Following the heads of compensation identified in *Raj Kumar*, it found the claimants entitled to additional sums for "loss of marriage prospects" and "loss of amenities of life" due to the restrictive nature of their limb injuries.

The Court held that "future prospects" must be included in injury cases involving permanent disability and that non-pecuniary heads must adequately reflect the loss of life quality.

The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced amount with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing the petition within four weeks.