Inability to continue pre-accident avocation warrants assessment of 100% functional disability.

On 7 May 2018, the appellant-claimant, aged approximately 21 years and working as a mason, was travelling on a motorcycle with his wife and daughter.

While the motorcycle was stopped on the roadside near Jodavant Village, a container truck bearing registration No. GJ-12-AT-8960 allegedly approached at excessive speed and in a rash and negligent manner and collided with them, causing the claimant multiple grievous injuries, including fractures.

The claimant filed Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 1 of 2019 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chhotaudepur.

The Tribunal partly allowed the claim and awarded Rs.20,48,822 with interest at 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.

The claimant challenged the award solely on the ground of quantum.

Whether the claimant’s monthly income was required to be reassessed with reference to the applicable minimum wages and whether future prospects were to be added?

Whether the claimant’s functional disability should be assessed at 100%, rather than 90%, for determining future loss of income?

Whether the compensation awarded under pain, shock and suffering; special diet, attendant charges and transportation; and loss of amenities of life required enhancement?

Whether the Tribunal’s award of Rs.30,000 under the head of actual loss of income could be sustained after assessing 100% functional disability?

The Court applied the principle that, in the absence of reliable proof of actual income, the claimant’s income may be assessed on the basis of the applicable minimum wages.

It relied on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, and Sidram v. The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2023) 3 SCC 439, for adding future prospects to the established income of a young claimant.

Relying on Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343, the Court held that functional disability must be assessed with reference to the effect of the injuries on the claimant’s earning capacity and specific avocation, rather than merely on the medical percentage of permanent disability.

The Court also relied on Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain v. Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, 2023 (20) SCC 774, while considering compensation for pain, shock and suffering.

The Court found that the claimant had not produced cogent evidence of actual income.

Since he was a skilled mason and the applicable minimum wage in Gujarat at the time of the accident was Rs.8,326 per month, the Court reassessed his monthly income accordingly.

Considering his age of approximately 21 years, it added 40% towards future prospects, resulting in an assessed monthly income of Rs.11,656.

Although the Tribunal had assessed disability at 90%, it had itself recorded that the claimant could no longer perform masonry work, which required standing and climbing.

Applying the functional-disability principle in Raj Kumar, the Court held that the claimant had suffered 100% functional disability in relation to his established occupation and applied a multiplier of 18, calculating future loss of income at Rs.25,17,696.

The Court maintained medical expenses at Rs.4,80,822 because they were supported by medical bills.

In view of the claimant’s multiple fractures, surgical treatment and prolonged treatment period, it enhanced pain, shock and suffering from Rs.50,000 to Rs.2,00,000.

It enhanced special diet, attendant charges and transportation from Rs.30,000 to Rs.1,00,000.

Since future loss of income was calculated on the basis of 100% functional disability, the separate award of Rs.30,000 for actual loss of income was disallowed.

The Court additionally awarded Rs.2,50,000 for loss of amenities of life, which the Tribunal had omitted.

The total compensation was enhanced from Rs.20,48,822 to Rs.35,48,518, comprising Rs.25,17,696 for future loss of income, Rs.2,50,000 for loss of amenities, Rs.4,80,822 for medical expenses, Rs.1,00,000 for special diet, attendant charges and transportation, and Rs.2,00,000 for pain, shock and suffering.

After deducting the amount already awarded, the claimant became entitled to additional compensation of Rs.14,99,696, with interest at 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization.

Respondent No. 2–Insurance Company was directed to deposit the additional compensation and interest within six weeks of receiving the judgment.

The Tribunal was directed to disburse the amount after deducting any deficit court fees and completing due verification.

The connected civil application for withdrawal/disbursement was disposed of as infructuous.