Loss of earning capacity must reflect occupational impact, not merely whole-body disability.

The appellant was injured when his car collided with a lorry whose driver had allegedly braked suddenly.

The Tribunal found the lorry driver negligent and awarded the appellant ₹3,19,857 in compensation, holding the lorry’s insurer liable.

The appellant appealed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement.

He challenged, among other things, the income and disability assessment and the amounts awarded for pain and suffering and loss of amenities.

The High Court considered the appeal as one concerning the adequacy of compensation.

1. Whether the appellant was entitled to enhancement of compensation, including for future loss of earning capacity and other heads.

2. Whether the insurer of the lorry was liable to pay the enhanced compensation.

The appeal was brought under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

In reassessing compensation, the Court applied the principles reflected in its calculation: determining loss of future earnings using monthly income, percentage of loss of earning capacity, and the applicable multiplier; and assessing compensation under distinct heads including pain and suffering, medical expenses, treatment-period income loss, and loss of amenities.

Although the appellant claimed monthly earnings exceeding ₹6,000, he produced no specific proof of income. The Court therefore adopted a notional income of ₹6,500 per month, rather than the Tribunal’s ₹5,000.

Considering the appellant’s age (22), the multiplier of 18, the elbow-movement restriction, and its particular effect on his work as a driver, the Court assessed loss of earning capacity at 10% and awarded ₹1,40,400 for future loss of income.

It increased compensation for pain and suffering from ₹25,000 to ₹50,000, for loss of income during treatment to ₹19,500, and for loss of amenities, disfigurement, and marriage prospects from ₹25,000 to ₹50,000. It retained the medical expenses and the amounts awarded for food and nourishment, conveyance, and attendant charges.

Compensation was enhanced from ₹3,19,857 to ₹4,49,957, rounded to ₹4,50,000, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition until deposit, excluding the 235-day delay in filing the appeal.

Respondent No. 2, the lorry’s insurer, was directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with the Tribunal within six weeks; upon deposit, the enhanced compensation and interest were ordered released to the appellant electronically.