Future prospects and functional disability assessments must align with the nature of employment for motor accident compensation.

These are cross-appeals arising from a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) award dated 14th August 2014.

On 3rd January 2010, the claimant, Sunil Bajaj, was riding a scooter with his wife and child when an offending vehicle, driving at high speed while overtaking an auto, struck them near New Delhi Railway Station.

The claimant suffered 35% permanent disability in his right lower limb.

The MACT awarded Rs. 10,74,773 with 9% interest.

The Insurance Company sought a reduction, while the claimant sought enhancement of this compensation.

1. Whether future prospects should be granted at 40% in accordance with established judicial precedents.

2. Whether the notional income of the claimant should be maintained at Rs. 11,000 per month or reduced to minimum wages.

3. Whether the claimant was liable for contributory negligence based on the site plan and circumstances of the collision.

4. Whether the functional disability should be increased from 17.5% to 30% given the nature of the claimant’s vocation.

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

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 to determine the addition of 40% for future prospects for an injured party aged 29.

Regarding the assessment of functional disability versus physical disability, the Court followed Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343, which mandates assessing the effect of the specific permanent disability on the claimant’s actual earning capacity and specific vocation.

The Court upheld the notional income of Rs. 11,000 based on the Salary Certificate (Ex. PW3/A) and corroborative testimony from the employer's assistant (PW3).

On contributory negligence, the Court reviewed the site plan and determined the collision occurred on the right side of a broad road, absolving the claimant of negligence, especially as the insurer failed to raise this plea in the original written statement.

Applying Raj Kumar, the Court found the MACT’s assessment of 17.5% functional disability inadequate. Since the claimant was an Office Assistant performing field work requiring extensive mobility, a 35% limb disability significantly hindered his specific employment; thus, the Court increased the functional disability to 30%.

Future prospects were adjusted to 40%.

The Court directed the Insurance Company to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs. 3,53,430 with 9% interest within four weeks.

The Registrar General was directed to release the balance of the original deposit and the newly enhanced sum to the claimant as a lump sum.