Functional disability enhanced after considering minimum wages for skilled labor and adding future prospects.

On October 7, 2009, the appellant was driving his Maruti WagonR when the respondent, driving a car in a rash and negligent manner, collided with him

The appellant sustained serious injuries, including a comminuted fracture of the patella and a displaced fracture of the right hip joint, resulting in his right leg shortening by 5 cm

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Navsari, in MACP No. 66/2010, awarded Rs. 1,76,630/- with 9% interest, assessing the appellant’s income at Rs. 3,000/- per month and functional disability at 10%

The appellant challenged this judgment on the grounds of insufficient quantum of compensation

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in assessing the appellant’s monthly income and failing to account for future prospects

2. Whether the assessment of functional disability at 10% was disproportionately low given the medical evidence of limb shortening and restricted mobility

3. Whether the appellant is entitled to enhanced compensation under non-pecuniary heads such as loss of amenities and pain and suffering

The Court applied the principles for determining "just compensation" under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 to mandate a 40% addition to income for future prospects for a self-employed person aged 39

Sidram v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2022) INSC 1202 regarding the assessment of functional disability

Minimum Wages Schedule notified by the Government of Gujarat to determine notional income in the absence of documentary proof

The Court found the Tribunal’s income assessment of Rs. 3,000/- per month erroneous, as it fell below the minimum wage of Rs. 3,880/- for skilled workers at the time; the Court reassessed it at Rs. 4,000/-

Applying Pranay Sethi, the Court added 40% for future prospects, totaling Rs. 5,600/-

Regarding disability, the Court noted that despite the medical expert (Dr. Shaikh) certifying 80% limb disability and 5 cm shortening, the Tribunal assigned only 10% functional disability

Given the appellant’s scrap business required physical mobility, the Court increased functional disability to 30%

The Court applied a multiplier of 15 based on the appellant’s age

Finally, the Court observed that the Tribunal failed to award damages for "loss of amenities" despite the permanent shortening of the leg and increased the awards for pain and suffering and medical attendants to reflect the reality of multiple surgeries

It held that the appellant is entitled to an additional sum of Rs. 3,31,400/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition until realization

The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the additional amount within six weeks

The holding affirmed that functional disability must be assessed relative to the claimant’s avocation and that minimum wage standards serve as the baseline for notional income