FUTURE PROSPECTS MUST BE INCLUDED IN CALCULATING COMPENSATION FOR PERMANENT FUNCTIONAL DISABILITY IN PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS

On April 9, 2019, the appellant, a 21-year-old textile designer, was injured when a tyre detached from a tanker (GJ-16-AU-5285) and struck the rickshaw in which he was traveling.

The appellant sustained multiple fractures and underwent extensive inpatient and outpatient treatment at General Hospital, Kheda, and L.G. Hospital, Ahmedabad.

He filed M.A.C.P. No. 698 of 2019, wherein the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Kheda at Nadiad, awarded Rs. 2,70,725/- with 7.5% interest.

The appellant challenged this award on the grounds of quantum, specifically seeking enhancement for future prospective income, dietary/attendant charges, and pain and suffering.

1. Whether the learned Tribunal erred in failing to account for future prospective income in the calculation of compensation for a 21-year-old claimant.

2. Whether the compensation awarded under the heads of "Pain, Shock, and Suffering" and "Actual Loss of Income" was inadequate given the nature of the injuries and duration of treatment.

The court primarily applied the principles of "just compensation" under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

It relied on the precedent set in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Sidram v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited & Anr. (2022) INSC 1202, which mandate the addition of future prospects (40% for individuals under 40 years of age with a set income) to the actual salary when calculating future loss of income.

The court also followed standard multipliers established in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation.

The Court found that the Tribunal failed to include future prospects despite the claimant’s young age of 21.

By applying Pranay Sethi, the Court added 40% to the established monthly income of Rs. 9,000, resulting in a monthly figure of Rs. 12,600.

Using the undisputed 11% functional disability and a multiplier of 18, the Court re-calculated the Future Loss of Income to Rs. 2,99,376.

Regarding non-pecuniary damages, the Court observed that the multiple fractures and lengthy hospitalization (indoor and outdoor) justified increasing "Pain, Shock, and Suffering" to Rs. 20,000.

Furthermore, the Court extended the "Actual Loss of Income" period from one month to two months (totaling Rs. 18,000) to accurately reflect the recovery duration required for such grievous injuries.

Specifically, it awarded an additional sum of Rs. 1,04,536/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition until realization. The Insurance Company (Respondent No. 2) was directed to deposit the additional amount within six weeks, and the Tribunal was ordered to disburse the funds to the appellant after verifying court fees.