Future prospects cannot be added to notional income when calculating an injured claimant’s loss of future income.

The claimant sought compensation for injuries sustained in a road accident on 25 June 2021 involving a two-wheeler and a truck.

The insurer disputed the truck’s involvement, alleging that the claimant had fallen from the two-wheeler, and challenged the compensation calculation.

The Tribunal awarded ₹5,00,525, including ₹3,59,100 for loss of future income, and directed the insurer to pay.

On the insurer’s appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the High Court considered both the alleged non-involvement of the truck and the addition of 40% future prospects to the claimant’s notional income.

Whether the insurer established that the offending truck was not involved in the accident and that the claimant sustained injuries by falling from the two-wheeler.

Whether the Tribunal was justified in adding 40% towards future prospects when calculating loss of future income on the basis of notional income.

Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for an appeal to the High Court against an award of a Claims Tribunal.

For calculating loss of future income, the Court applied the multiplier method and, relying on *Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation*, 2009 ACJ 1298, used a multiplier of 15 for the claimant, whom it treated as 37 years old at the time of the accident.

The Court held, on the facts of this case, that 40% future prospects should not be added to the claimant’s notional income.

The insurer relied on the absence of damage to the truck, the limited damage to the two-wheeler, the timing of the complaint, and the medical records.

The Court found that the two-wheeler had sustained damage, the claimant had received treatment after the accident, and the police had investigated and filed a charge sheet against the truck driver.

It also noted that the insurer’s witness admitted the truck had struck the rear of the two-wheeler and that the insurer produced no convincing evidence of false implication.

The insurer therefore failed to establish non-involvement.

As to quantum, the Court upheld the Tribunal’s assessment of 10% whole-body disability and monthly notional income of ₹14,250, but removed the 40% addition for future prospects.

Applying a multiplier of 15, it recalculated loss of future income as ₹2,56,500.

The appeal was allowed in part: the award was modified by reducing loss of future income from ₹3,59,100 to ₹2,56,500, while the other heads of compensation remained undisturbed.

Any excess amount deposited was ordered to be refunded to the insurer.