Future prospects apply to self-employed victims suffering 100% functional disability.

On 18 September 2011, the claimant and his family stopped for dinner at Hotel Anjali on the Ahmedabad–Himmatnagar Highway.

While the claimant was standing near his parked car, the vehicle driven by respondent No.1 allegedly in a rash and negligent manner struck him and his family, causing the claimant grievous injuries, including fractures and multiple other injuries resulting in 100% functional disability.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sabarkantha, partly allowed the claim petition and awarded ₹26,06,754 with interest at 9% per annum.

The claimant appealed under the Motor Vehicles Act challenging the quantum of compensation, particularly the assessment of income, future prospects, physiotherapy, attendant charges, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and other heads.

1. Whether the Tribunal had correctly assessed the claimant’s monthly income at ₹3,500, or whether his income from business and agriculture warranted reassessment at a higher amount?

2. Whether the claimant was entitled to an addition for future prospects and compensation for 100% functional disability using the appropriate multiplier?

3. Whether the compensation awarded under physiotherapy, special diet, transportation, attendant charges, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities required enhancement on the basis of the evidence and applicable precedents?

4. Whether any amount was separately payable for actual loss of income despite the award of compensation for 100% functional disability?

The Court applied the principles governing “just compensation” in motor accident claims.

Relying on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, and Sidram v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2023) 3 SCC 439, it held that 40% of the established income should be added towards future prospects for a claimant aged 36 years.

For attendant charges, the Court relied on Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, (2020) 4 SCC 413, applying the minimum wages for a skilled worker where the actual bills were not accepted as reliable.

The same decision supported enhancement of compensation for pain, shock and suffering in cases involving severe and permanent disability.

For loss of amenities of life, the Court relied on Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain v. Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, 2023 (20) SCC 774, recognising compensation for deprivation of normal life and basic amenities caused by permanent disability.

The Court found that the Tribunal had undervalued the claimant’s income by assessing it at ₹3,500 per month.

The claimant had established his educational qualifications, business registrations, agricultural land ownership, and substantial deposits in his State Bank of India and Bank of Baroda accounts; his LIC premium payments also indicated earning capacity inconsistent with the Tribunal’s assessment.

On the totality of the evidence, the Court reassessed monthly income at ₹25,000.

Since the claimant was 36 years old, 40% was added for future prospects, producing a monthly income of ₹35,000.

Applying 100% functional disability and a multiplier of 15, future loss of income was calculated at ₹63,00,000.

The Court awarded the proven physiotherapy expenses of ₹4,68,000 instead of ₹2,25,000.

The Court enhanced special diet and transportation charges to ₹1,00,000 each considering the multiple injuries and prolonged hospitalisation.

For attendant charges, it rejected the unreasonably high bills but applied the skilled-worker minimum wage of ₹4,660 per month, yielding ₹8,38,800 with a multiplier of 15.

Pain and suffering was enhanced to ₹10,00,000 because the claimant had become bedridden and 100% disabled, while ₹3,00,000 was awarded for loss of amenities.

The separate award of ₹42,000 for actual loss of income was disallowed because the claimant’s 100% functional disability was already compensated through the future-loss-of-income calculation.

The total compensation was enhanced from ₹26,06,754 to ₹1,05,66,554, resulting in additional compensation of ₹79,59,800.

The additional amount was directed to carry interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realisation.

Respondent No.3–Insurance Company was directed to deposit the additional compensation and interest within eight weeks, after which the Tribunal was to disburse the amount to the claimant after verification and deduction of any deficit court fees.