Future prospects and standard multipliers apply to permanent disability claims regardless of continued government employment.

On May 8, 2006, the original claimant was riding a scooter when he was struck from behind by an A.M.T.S. bus driven in a negligent manner

The claimant, a 38-year-old Arts College Professor earning Rs. 26,230/- per month, sustained 30% permanent body disability

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) awarded Rs. 5,74,480/- with 8% interest, attributing 80% negligence to the bus driver and 20% to the claimant

A.M.T.S. appealed the negligence finding, while the claimant filed cross-objections seeking higher compensation for future economic loss

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in attributing 80% negligence to the A.M.T.S. driver despite his acquittal in criminal proceedings

2. Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation for loss of future prospects and a higher multiplier, notwithstanding his continued employment as a professor

The Court applied Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act regarding compensation and the principles of contributory negligence

It relied on *Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation* [2009 AIR (SC) 3104] and *National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi* [2017 (16) SCC 680] to determine the correct multiplier and future prospects

It further applied *Sidram v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.* [(2022) INSC 1202] regarding future income in disability cases, *Preetha Krishnan v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.* [2025 SCC OnLine SC 2365] prohibiting split multipliers, and *Soni Sharma v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.* [2026 ACJ 109] which establishes that continued employment does not bar claims for loss of future earning capacity

The Court upheld the 80:20 negligence ratio, noting that the bus hit the scooter from behind and that criminal acquittal does not bind civil liability in claim petitions

Regarding quantum, the Court found the Tribunal’s use of a "5" multiplier and exclusion of future prospects erroneous

Following *Pranay Sethi*, it applied a multiplier of "15" based on the claimant's age (38) and added 50% for future prospects

The Court rejected the appellant's argument that continued employment negated financial loss, ruling that physical disability inherently impacts career efficiency and promotional prospects in the long term, regardless of immediate salary retention

It held that the claimant is entitled to an enhanced total compensation of Rs. 18,96,458/- (after 20% deduction for contributory negligence), resulting in an additional award of Rs. 13,21,978/-

The interest rate of 8% per annum was maintained from the date of the claim petition until realization, with a direction to A.M.T.S. to deposit the amount within six weeks