Entitlement to Future Prospects When Determining Loss of Earning Capacity in Motor Accident Injury Claims

The appellant, a cleaner on a truck (GJ-12-T-7845), sustained grievous injuries (fracture of the upper end of the femur) when the truck crashed into a rock due to the driver's rash and negligent driving in 2002.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Kachchh at Bhuj, partly allowed the claim in 2019, awarding ₹76,000 against a claim of ₹8,50,000.

The appellant filed this appeal specifically challenging the quantum of compensation, arguing that the Tribunal failed to consider future prospective income and awarded meager amounts under conventional heads.

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in failing to include future prospective income and in its assessment of the appellant's monthly income for calculating compensation.

2. Whether the compensation awarded under the heads of pain, shock, suffering, and diet/attendant charges requires enhancement.

The court applied the principle from Govind Yadav v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2012), which mandates that in the absence of salary proof, the Tribunal must consider prevalent minimum wages.

It followed the methodology established in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) regarding the application of the appropriate multiplier (13 for the age of 46) and the addition of future prospects (25% for a claimant with an inferred income).

The High Court observed that while the Tribunal correctly assessed the annual income at ₹30,000 (roughly matching the minimum wage of ₹2,200/month in 2002) and correctly accepted the 13% functional disability agreed upon by the parties, it failed to factor in future prospective income.

Applying the Sarla Verma guidelines for a 46-year-old, the court added 25% to the annual income (₹30,000 + ₹7,500 = ₹37,500).

Using the multiplier of 13 and the 13% disability rate, the Court recalculated the future loss of income at ₹63,375, compared to the Tribunal’s award of ₹51,000.

The Court found the awards under conventional heads (pain and suffering, medical expenses, etc.) to be just and proper, requiring no interference.

The total revised compensation is ₹88,375 with proportionate costs and interest as originally awarded.

Respondent No. 3 (Insurance Company) was directed to deposit the additional amount within four weeks, and the Tribunal was instructed to deduct any deficit court fees before disbursing the funds via RTGS/NEFT.