Mental and cognitive deficits may constitute 75% functional disability despite limited locomotor impairment.

The appellant challenged the award dated 14 January 2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bathinda, which awarded him ₹2,80,210 for injuries suffered in a motor-vehicle accident.

The appellant had suffered a serious head injury, undergone prolonged hospitalization and surgical treatment, and relied upon a disability certificate recording mild mental retardation, along with medical bills and treatment records.

The appeal was confined to the quantum of compensation.

Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was inadequate and required enhancement under the principles applicable to claims for personal injuries under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Whether, in the absence of documentary proof of income, the appellant’s income could be assessed notionally at ₹4,500 per month.

Whether the appellant’s mental and cognitive impairment justified assessment of his functional disability at 75% for computing loss of future earning capacity.

Whether the appellant was entitled to compensation for future prospects, medical expenses, pain and suffering, attendant charges, special diet, conveyance and related pecuniary losses.

What should be the enhanced compensation and applicable rate of interest.

The Court applied Sections 166 and 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, governing claims for compensation and appeals against awards.

Under Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, compensation in personal-injury cases may include medical expenses, loss of earnings during treatment, loss of future earning capacity, future medical expenses, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities, depending on the seriousness of the injury and supporting medical evidence.

Relying on Chandra @ Chanda @ Chandraram v. Mukesh Kumar Yadav, the Court held that, where income is not proved by documentary evidence, minimum wages may serve as a yardstick, but assessment must involve reasonable guesswork and should not be detached from reality.

Under Pappu Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar, future prospects may be awarded in a disability claim while assessing future loss of income.

Applying National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, a 30% addition for future prospects was applicable to a claimant aged between 40 and 50 years.

The Court also relied on K. Murlidhar v. R. Subbulakshmi for the principle that compensation for pain and suffering must be reasonable and proportionate to the gravity of injuries, disability, hospitalization and mental and physical agony.

The Court found that the claimed income of ₹8,000 per month was not established because no employer, record keeper or relevant driving licence was produced; however, considering that the appellant was of working age and engaged in manual work, it assessed his notional income at ₹4,500 per month, or ₹150 per day.

Since he remained hospitalized for 36 days, loss of income during treatment was calculated at ₹5,400.

Although the medical record referred to a 50% disability, the Court distinguished medical disability from functional disability and held that the appellant’s permanent mental and cognitive deficits substantially impaired his ability to work and live independently. It therefore assessed functional disability at 75%.

As the appellant was 44 years old, the Court added 30% towards future prospects, taking monthly income to ₹5,850, and applied the multiplier of 14, resulting in ₹7,37,100 for loss of future earning capacity.

The Court reassessed medical and hospitalization expenses at ₹2,50,000 despite proved bills totalling ₹2,24,206, awarded ₹5,00,000 for pain and suffering, and granted ₹5,00,000 towards special diet, conveyance and attendant charges, having regard to the serious head injury, prolonged treatment and continuing dependence upon the appellant’s wife.

The appellant was accordingly awarded an enhanced amount of ₹17,12,290 after adjustment of the amount already granted by the Tribunal.

The entire compensation was directed to carry interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization.

The respondents were ordered to deposit the enhanced amount with interest within two months of receiving the certified copy of the judgment; failing such deposit, the outstanding amount would carry interest at 12% per annum thereafter.