Functional disability must reflect the injury’s actual impact on the claimant’s earning capacity.

Basappa, a coolie aged about 50, was injured on 9 March 2021 while riding as a pillion passenger on a motorcycle.

He sustained a serious T12–L1 spinal injury, underwent surgery, and claimed permanent disability and loss of earning capacity.

The Tribunal found the accident resulted from the rider’s negligence and awarded him Rs.6,76,200, assessing functional disability at 30% and monthly income at Rs.9,000.

Basappa appealed, seeking enhancement.

Whether the Tribunal was justified in assessing functional disability at 30% and monthly income at Rs.9,000.

Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal represented “just compensation” under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Under Sections 166 and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, compensation must be just, and loss of future earning capacity is assessed by reference to the injury’s actual effect on the claimant’s earning capacity, not merely the medical percentage of physical disability (Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar).

For future prospects, the Court applied National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, which allows a 10% addition for a self-employed person aged between 50 and 60; for the multiplier, it applied Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, prescribing multiplier 13 for a person aged 50.

The Court also referred to the KSLSA notional-income chart for 2021 and authorities concerning compensation for serious permanent disability.

The Court found that the claimant’s spinal injury, inability to walk, neurological deficit, and need for continuing care materially impaired his ability to perform manual work as a coolie.

It held that the Tribunal had not adequately explained how he retained 70% of his earning capacity and assessed functional disability at 75%.

As documentary proof of income was absent, the Court applied the 2021 KSLSA monthly income of Rs.15,000, added 10% future prospects, and used multiplier 13, calculating loss of future earning capacity at Rs.19,30,500.

It also reassessed loss of treatment-period income and pain and suffering, enhanced loss of amenities, and awarded Rs.2,00,000 for future medical expenses, while retaining the other specified heads.

The judgment’s compensation table states a revised total of Rs.25,38,500, with enhanced compensation of Rs.18,62,300.

However, the operative order states a total of Rs.33,18,500—while spelling it out as “Thirty-Three Lakh Twenty-Eight Thousand Five Hundred”—creating an apparent inconsistency with the table and its stated enhancement.

The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with 6% annual interest from the petition date, excluding Rs.2,00,000 awarded for future medical expenses, within eight weeks.