Functional Disability Must Be Assessed at 100% for Head Injuries Causing Significant Cognitive Impairment.

On April 6, 2018, the appellant (a 20-year-old pillion rider) sustained a major head injury and multiple lacerations when an auto-rickshaw made a sudden U-turn and struck the motorcycle he was on.

Represented by his mother due to being of unsound mind following the injury, he filed a claim petition.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Kundapura, awarded Rs. 10,36,950/- with 6% interest, assessing his monthly income at Rs. 12,500/- and his physical disability at only 15%.

The appellant challenged this award, seeking enhancement on the grounds that his cognitive disability was assessed at 45% by a Neurosurgeon (C.W.1) and should be treated as 100% functional disability given his mental state.

1. Whether the functional disability of the claimant should be assessed at 100% due to permanent cognitive impairment from a head injury.

2. Whether the claimant is entitled to enhancement of compensation under heads such as future prospects and marriage prospects.

The Court applied Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, regarding appeals against awards.

It relied on the Supreme Court precedent in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and Others (2020), which established that for 100% mental disability, courts must take a liberal view in awarding "just compensation," utilizing the multiplier system for both loss of income and attendant charges to account for inflation and longevity.

It further applied New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Abdul, which mandates the addition of future prospects (40% for those under 40 years) if the disability exceeds 20%.

Additionally, the court followed Sri Chandra Mogaveera v. Sri Gururaj Poojary, holding that a significant physical/head injury causing cognitive loss can be equated to 100% functional disability.

The Court observed that the appellant was 20 years old at the time of the accident, making the appropriate multiplier 18.

While the Tribunal assessed disability at 15%, the High Court noted the Neurosurgeon’s evidence (C.W.1) regarding a 45% cognitive disability with no chance of improvement, rendering the appellant of unsound mind.

Integrating the principles from Kajal and Sri Chandra Mogaveera, the Court determined that a victim with such brain destruction suffers "total functional disability" for earning purposes, thus revising the assessment to 100%.

The Court calculated future loss of income by adding 40% for future prospects to the notional income of Rs. 12,500.

Although the Court acknowledged the loss of marriage prospects, it declined to award separate attendant charges under the multiplier method because the appellant's mother provided the care personally and no proof of external hired services was presented.

The total compensation was enhanced from Rs. 10,36,950/- to Rs. 44,99,950/- with 6% interest. The enhancement included Rs. 37,80,000/- for loss of future income and Rs. 3,00,000/- for loss of marriage prospects.

The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the balance amount within one month, and the appellant’s mother, as natural guardian, was permitted to withdraw the entire sum.