Future prospects and combined physical-neurological disabilities must be considered when determining functional disability and compensation.

On December 24, 2015, the appellant, a 19-year-old B.Tech student, was riding a motorcycle when he was struck by a tanker driven in a rash and negligent manner.

The appellant sustained multiple fractures and serious neurological injuries, resulting in long-term hospitalization and surgical intervention.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Vadodara, initially awarded Rs. 13,06,799 in 2022 and subsequently an additional Rs. 5,40,000 for neurological disability via a review petition in 2025.

The appellant challenged these awards before the High Court seeking enhancement, specifically arguing that the Tribunal failed to consider future prospects and undervalued the neurological disability.

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in failing to add future prospects to the claimant’s assessed monthly income for calculating the loss of future income.

2. Whether the functional disability of the claimant was erroneously assessed at a lower percentage despite medical evidence of both orthopedic and severe neurological impairment.

3. Whether the compensation awarded under the head of "Pain, Shock, and Suffering" was just and adequate given the severity of the injuries and their impact on the claimant's academic life.

The Court primarily applied the principles for calculating compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

It relied on the landmark judgment in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) to mandate a 40% addition for "future prospects" to the actual salary/income of a deceased or injured person under the age of 40 who is self-employed or on a fixed salary.

It further applied the principles from Sidram v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2022) regarding the entitlement to prospective rise in income.

Additionally, the court adhered to the "Multiplier method" established in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and the assessment of functional disability vs. physical disability as discussed in Aabid Khan v. Dinesh & Ors.

The Court observed that while the Tribunal correctly assessed the monthly income at Rs. 10,000, it failed to apply the mandatory 40% hike for future prospects required for a 19-year-old victim.

Regarding disability, the Court noted that the Tribunal ignored the cumulative effect of a 7% orthopedic disability and a 39% neurological disability.

Evidence from the treating doctor and M.S. University’s psychological department confirmed "severe dysfunction" in executive functions, which directly correlated to the claimant’s failed academic performance post-accident.

Consequently, the Court found the Tribunal’s assessment of functional disability too low and revised it to 46% for the body as a whole.

Finally, the Court determined that the initial award for "Pain, Shock, and Suffering" was meager considering the permanent impact on the student's memory and career, justifying an increase to Rs. 1,00,000.

The Court held that the claimant is entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 7,49,840 with 9% interest per annum from the date of the claim petition.

The Court directed the Insurance Company to deposit the additional amount within six weeks and ordered the Tribunal to disburse the funds to the appellant upon verification.