Interest is payable on the entire compensation, including future prospects.

On 25 November 2014, the claimant was injured in an accident involving a passenger bus and later underwent amputation of his right leg below the knee.

He brought a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded him ₹23,59,083 with interest at 7% per annum.

The insurer appealed, challenging, among other things, the claimant’s assessed income and 70% loss of earning capacity. The claimant sought enhancement, including compensation for future treatment and a higher interest rate, despite filing no cross-appeal or cross-objection.

Whether the Tribunal correctly assessed the claimant’s income and loss of future earning capacity, and whether the compensation awarded warranted interference.

Whether interest was payable on the component representing future prospects.

Whether compensation could be enhanced in the claimant’s favour without a cross-appeal or cross-objection, given the amount claimed and awarded.

Sections 166 and 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provide, respectively, for a claim for compensation and an appeal against a Tribunal’s award.

In assessing injury compensation, functional disability and loss of earning capacity are to be evaluated in light of the claimant’s occupation and the evidence; the percentage of physical disability need not automatically determine the percentage of earning-capacity loss. The Court relied on Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343, cited on the assessment of disability.

The Court relied on Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2014) 1 TAC 369 (SC), as an income-assessment comparator for a vegetable vendor.

It also applied Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Neeru alias Niharika, judgment dated 14 July 2025, for the rule that interest is payable on the whole compensation, including future prospects.

A claimant’s failure to file a cross-appeal or cross-objection does not, by itself, prevent an appellate court from awarding just compensation; however, enhancement must be justified on the facts.

The Tribunal’s estimate of ₹9,000 monthly income was upheld. Although the claimant’s income certificate was not proved through its issuing office, the Court considered the Tribunal’s estimate reasonable in light of the claimant’s work as a vegetable businessman and the comparable income adopted in Syed Sadiq for a vegetable vendor injured in 2008.

The Court also upheld the 70% loss of earning capacity: the claimant’s below-knee amputation was permanent and materially impaired his ability to continue his prior occupation, making the Tribunal’s assessment reasonable on the evidence.

It rejected the insurer’s challenge to interest on future prospects in light of Neeru.

Although enhancement was legally possible without a cross-objection, the award of ₹23,59,083 was close to the ₹24 lakh claimed, and the Court found no basis to treat it as unjust or enhance it.

It declined the claimant’s request for enhancement and directed the Registry to return the Tribunal record with a copy of the judgment.