Future loss of earnings must reflect occupational disability and notional income despite unproved salary.

On 27 February 2017, the appellant’s motorcycle was struck by a Tata Ace, causing injuries that required hospitalisation and surgery.

He claimed compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, alleging that he worked as a Claims Processing Executive and had suffered permanent disability.

The Tribunal awarded Rs. 3,77,500 after finding 20% contributory negligence; it awarded a lump sum for physical disablement but no compensation for loss of future income or income during the laid-up period.

The appellant alone challenged the award, seeking enhanced compensation.

The doctor assessed disability at 66% of the right lower limb and 33% of the whole body.

1. Whether the Tribunal erred by not awarding compensation for loss of future income, and whether the appellant’s functional disability and earning capacity warranted reassessment.

2. Whether compensation for income lost during the laid-up period and future medical expenses should be enhanced.

3. Whether the Tribunal’s finding of 20% contributory negligence should be disturbed.

Under Sections 166 and 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a claimant may seek compensation for accident-related loss and appeal the Tribunal’s award.

Where actual income is not proved, the Court may assess income notionally; for a 2017 accident, it applied the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority’s notional-income figure of Rs. 11,000 per month.

Applying National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, the Court added 40% for future prospects to the income of the 24-year-old claimant.

Loss of future earnings was assessed by applying the multiplier of 18 and the functional disability attributable to the claimant’s occupation and injuries.

Although the claimant had not proved his salary, the Court held that the Tribunal should have used a notional income rather than omit future-income compensation.

The claimant’s desk-based work did not require manual labour, but the right-hip injury and difficulty sitting for prolonged periods affected his ability to perform that work.

The Court therefore assessed functional disability at 30%, rather than adopting the doctor’s whole-body assessment of 33% without adjustment, and calculated future-income loss at Rs. 9,97,920 using the notional income, future prospects and multiplier.

It also awarded Rs. 44,000 for four months’ lost income and increased future medical expenses from Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 40,000, having regard to the doctor’s evidence of further surgeries.

The record did not justify disturbing the Tribunal’s 20% contributory-negligence finding.

The Court enhanced compensation by Rs. 7,29,374, bringing the total compensation to Rs. 11,06,874 after deducting 20% for contributory negligence and accounting for the amount already awarded.

The enhanced amount was made payable by the insurer with interest at 9% per annum, as awarded by the Tribunal, within eight weeks; the remaining award was left undisturbed.