Insurance premiums and miscellaneous deductions cannot be subtracted from gross salary to determine actual loss of income.

The appellant/claimant, a police constable, sustained severe injuries (fractures in L2-L3 vertebrae and left inferior pubic ramus) in a motor vehicle accident involving the offending vehicle owned and driven by the respondents

He underwent surgery involving the insertion of plates and screws

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Dahod, awarded ₹1,83,622 with 7.5% interest

Although the claimant was promoted to Head Constable post-accident and suffered no functional disability leading to future loss of income, he appealed for enhancement of compensation, specifically challenging the Tribunal’s calculation of actual income and the low awards under non-pecuniary heads

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in deducting insurance and miscellaneous components from the gross salary while determining "actual loss of income"

2. Whether the compensation awarded under the heads of pain, shock, and suffering, and loss of amenities was just and proper given the nature of the injuries

The Court applied Section 166 and Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, regarding the assessment of "just compensation"

It relied on the principle that for income determination, the "actual salary less tax" should be considered, excluding voluntary deductions like insurance premiums

Furthermore, it followed the precedent established in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr (2011) 1 SCC 343, which mandates that even if a government servant suffers no future loss of income due to continued employment, compensation must still be awarded for "loss of amenities" resulting from permanent disability or loss of vital body functions

The High Court found that the Tribunal incorrectly deducted insurance premiums and miscellaneous items from the gross salary, noting that only professional tax (₹40) should have been excluded; thus, the monthly income was revised from ₹4,477 to ₹6,077

Regarding non-pecuniary damages, the Court observed that the claimant suffered paralysis in the lower limb and underwent major spinal surgery. While the Tribunal awarded a nominal ₹7,500 for pain and suffering, the Court enhanced this to ₹25,000, citing the intensity of the hardship.

Applying the Raj Kumar guidelines, the Court held that despite the lack of future income loss, the plates and screws in the claimant’s vertebrae significantly impacted his quality of life and "amenities," justifying an award of ₹20,000 under that head

It held that the claimant is entitled to an additional amount of ₹55,300 with 7.5% interest from the date of the claim petition. The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the enhanced amount within six weeks, and the Tribunal was ordered to disburse the entire amount to the claimant after verifying identity and deducting unpaid Court Fees