Functional disability must be assessed based on prolonged vegetative state and medical evidence of no future improvement.

The deceased, Ram Phool Sharma, a 58-year-old DTC employee, was struck by a Tata CNG Blue Line bus on January 9, 2005

He sustained severe head injuries, including skull fractures and subdural haematoma, necessitating multiple neurosurgeries and prolonged hospitalization

He remained in a semi-vegetative state, unable to perform daily activities, and eventually passed away on February 12, 2010

The MACT Rohini Courts awarded Rs. 15,02,000/- treating it primarily as an injury case with 25% functional disability

The Insurance Company appealed against the multiplier used, while the claimants sought enhancement, asserting a causal nexus between the accident and subsequent death

The Court primarily applied the principle from Kirti v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2021), which establishes that motor accident claims and legal liabilities crystallize at the time of the accident and subsequent changes should not ordinarily affect proceedings

It followed the "Just Compensation" mandate under the Motor Vehicles Act as a beneficial legislation, citing Helen C. Rebello v. MSRTC (1999) and Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2009)

For quantification, the Court relied on Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) for multipliers and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) for future prospects

It also referenced Meena (Dead) v. Prayagraj (2025) regarding the survival of injury claims for the benefit of the estate

The Court found that the deceased never recovered, remaining in a specialized care state from the accident until death

Rather than adopting a "hybrid" compensation model (injury + death), the Court held that the claim must be determined based on the injury status as it stood during the victim's survival, with the award forming part of the estate for legal heirs

Based on the testimony of the Senior Neurosurgeon (PW9) and a 50% permanent disability certificate, the Court determined that the Tribunal’s assessment of 25% functional disability was insufficient; it revised this to 50%

The Court rejected the Insurance Company’s objection to the multiplier, affirming that a multiplier of 9 was appropriate for a 58-year-old at the time of the accident

Future prospects of 25% were added as the deceased was a permanent employee

The Court specifically increased non-pecuniary heads (Pain and Suffering; Loss of Amenities) to Rs. 2,50,000/- each and revised Pecuniary heads (Special Diet/Conveyance; Attendant Charges) to Rs. 2,50,000/- each, reflecting the five-year period of suffering

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