Future prospects must be added to notional income when calculating compensation for permanent functional disability in injury claims.

On January 11, 2000, the appellant was riding a motorcycle with a pillion rider when a truck (GJ-6-W-6940) driving at excessive speed from the opposite direction collided with them.

The appellant sustained multiple fractures, underwent four surgeries, and was hospitalized for 90 days over a year-long treatment period.

The MACT (Main), Vadodara, in M.A.C.P. No. 1252 of 2000, awarded Rs. 3,18,400/- with 9% interest.

The appellant challenged this award on the grounds of quantum, specifically seeking enhancement for future prospects, longer actual loss of income, and higher non-pecuniary damages.

1. Whether the claimant is entitled to an addition for "future prospects" in the calculation of future loss of income despite the injuries not resulting in death.

2. Whether the period for calculating "actual loss of income" should be extended from three months to twelve months based on the severity of injuries.

3. Whether the compensation awarded under the heads of pain, shock, suffering, and side expenses (diet/attendant) was adequate.

The court primarily applied the principles of "just compensation" under the Motor Vehicles Act.

It relied on the landmark precedent of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) regarding the addition of 40% for future prospects for victims below 40 years of age.

It further applied the ratio from Sidram v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2022) to extend future prospect benefits to injury cases involving permanent disability.

The court also utilized the "Multiplier Method" as established in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation to calculate future loss of income.

The court found that the Tribunal erred by not including future prospects; since the appellant was 25 years old, a 40% addition to his notional income of Rs. 3,000 was mandatory, bringing the monthly base to Rs. 4,200.

Based on a consensual 30% functional disability and a multiplier of 18, the future loss was re-calculated to Rs. 2,72,160.

Regarding actual loss of income, the court observed that given the four surgeries and 90-day hospitalization, the claimant could not have worked for at least 12 months, justifying an increase from the 3 months originally awarded.

The court determined that the implantation of steel rods/plates and prolonged trauma necessitated an upward revision of non-pecuniary damages for pain and suffering to reflect the gravity of the physical discomfort.

The court ordered an additional payment of Rs. 2,34,760/- with 9% interest per annum from the date of the claim petition and directed the Respondent-Insurance Company to deposit the additional amount within six weeks.