Future prospects are awardable where permanent functional disability substantially impairs earning capacity.

On 3 May 2022, the claimant was riding motorcycle No. GJ-08-M-2601 when an Activa allegedly driven by Respondent No. 1 from the wrong side, rashly and negligently, collided with him. The claimant sustained grievous head injuries, remained unconscious and was hospitalized, including treatment on a ventilator for approximately 15 days. He was discharged in a semi-conscious condition and remained dependent on others for daily activities.

Through his father, the claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs. 25,00,000.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 34,89,500 with interest at 9% per annum, including Rs. 28,08,000 for loss of future income, Rs. 1,20,000 for loss of current income, Rs. 75,000 for pain, shock and suffering, Rs. 50,000 for special diet, transportation and attendance, and Rs. 4,36,500 towards medical expenses.

The claimant appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that the Tribunal had failed to award future prospects and had inadequately assessed non-pecuniary and attendant-care compensation.

1. Whether the claimant was entitled to an addition towards future prospects while computing loss of future income, having regard to his age and 65% functional disability?

2. Whether the amounts awarded towards pain, shock and suffering and attendant charges were inadequate in view of the claimant’s serious head injury, prolonged hospitalization and continuing dependence on others?

3. What enhanced compensation and consequential directions should be granted under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988?

The Court applied Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, governing appeals against awards of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, and Section 166, under which compensation is claimed for injuries arising from a motor-vehicle accident.

Compensation for loss of future income must account for the claimant’s established income, age-related multiplier and functional disability, together with an appropriate addition for future prospects where the circumstances justify it.

Functional disability, rather than physical disability alone, is relevant to assessing the claimant’s loss of earning capacity.

Separate and reasonable compensation may also be awarded for pain, shock and suffering and for attendant services where the medical evidence establishes prolonged disability and dependence.

The Court relied on the disability certificate issued by a neurosurgeon, which recorded approximately 81% permanent bodily disability and described impaired speech, limited understanding, severe mental weakness and dependence on others for bathing, dressing, eating and toileting.

Although the Tribunal had adopted 65% functional disability, it had not added any amount for future prospects. Considering the claimant’s age of 28 years, monthly income of Rs. 20,000 and 65% functional disability, the Court applied a 40% addition for prospective income, assessed the monthly prospective income at Rs. 28,000, applied the multiplier of 18 and calculated future loss of income at Rs. 39,31,200.

The Court further found that Rs. 75,000 for pain, shock and suffering was inadequate given the head injury, prolonged hospitalization, bedridden condition and continuing mental and physical limitations.

It therefore enhanced that amount to Rs. 2,00,000 and awarded a separate Rs. 1,50,000 for attendant charges, while retaining the other established heads of compensation.

The claimant was accordingly awarded an enhanced amount of Rs. 13,98,200, carrying interest at 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition until realization.

The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with accrued interest within 12 weeks.

Upon deposit, the Tribunal was directed to disburse the awarded amount in accordance with law, subject to verification, procedural compliance and deduction of unpaid court fees, if any.