Future prospects in motor accident claims for self-employed victims below 40 years rationalized at 40%.

On May 29, 2009, the Respondent No. 1 (claimant), a 22-year-old cold drink delivery man, was traveling in a delivery van that was hit by a negligently driven Tavera car.

The claimant suffered severe injuries resulting in post-traumatic paraplegia and 70% permanent locomotor disability.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded a total compensation of Rs. 11,38,700 with 7.5% interest, assessing functional disability at 70% and granting 50% future prospects.

The Insurance Company appealed for a reduction in compensation, specifically challenging the 50% future prospects and the non-pecuniary award.

1. Whether future prospects should be reduced from 50% to 40% in alignment with established Constitutional Bench precedents.

2. Whether the compensation awarded under non-pecuniary heads (pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and expectation of life) was excessive or required enhancement.

The Court primarily followed the principles established in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680, which rationalized future prospects at 40% for self-employed victims below 40 years of age.

The Court also considered Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh (2013) 9 SCC 54 regarding the previous standard for future prospects.

The Court referred to Shishu Pal & Anr. v. Surjeet & Anrs. 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1114 regarding the disposal of long-pending appeals on merits when claimants are unrepresented.

The Court observed that while the Tribunal correctly assessed the functional disability at 70% given the claimant's vocation and paraplegic condition, the grant of 50% future prospects was legally unsustainable following the Pranay Sethi judgment, which mandates 40% for this age bracket.

Regarding non-pecuniary damages, the Court rejected the appellant's claim of exaggeration. Instead, it determined that given the severity of "post-traumatic paraplegia," the compensation for "pain and suffering" was inadequate and needed to be increased from Rs. 1,00,000 to Rs. 1,50,000 to better reflect the victim's suffering.

The final compensation was marginally increased to Rs. 11,39,420 (an enhancement of Rs. 720). The Court directed the appellant to deposit the enhanced amount with 7.5% interest and ordered the Registrar General to release the remaining 20% balance (already deposited) plus the new enhancement to the claimant upon verification.