Minimum wages and future prospects must be considered when assessing functional disability in injury claims.

On June 12, 2012, the appellant, a diamond worker, was traveling in a goods tempo [Reg. No. GJ-23-W-788] with his goods when it collided with a Maruti Eeco [Reg. No. GJ-17-N-7288] driven negligibly.

The appellant sustained grievous injuries resulting in permanent partial disability.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Kheda, held the Eeco driver 80% negligent and the tempo driver 20% negligent.

The Tribunal awarded compensation of ₹2,20,000/- by assessing the appellant’s monthly income at ₹3,000/- and functional disability at 22%.

Dissatisfied with the quantum, the claimant appealed for enhancement.

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in assessing the appellant's monthly income at ₹3,000/- instead of considering minimum wages for skilled/semi-skilled labor.

2. Whether the appellant is entitled to an addition for "future prospects" in a personal injury claim.

3. Whether the assessment of 22% functional disability was just and proper given the medical evidence.

The Court applied the principles of determining "just compensation" under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

It relied on *Govind Yadav v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.* [2012(1) TAC 1 (SC)] to adopt prevailing minimum wage rates for income assessment.

Regarding future prospects, it followed *National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi* [2017 ACJ 2700], allowing a 25% addition for the age group of 45 years.

For determining the multiplier, it applied *Sarla Verma v. DTC* [2009 (6) SCC 121].

Most critically, it utilized *Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar* [2011 (1) SCC 343] to distinguish between physical impairment and "functional disability" (loss of earning capacity).

The Court found the Tribunal’s income assessment of ₹3,000/- insufficient, as it ignored the prevailing minimum wages for semi-skilled workers, which the Court recalculated to ₹4,850/-.

Following *Pranay Sethi*, the Court added 25% for future prospects (₹1,212/-), totaling a monthly income of ₹6,062/-.

Regarding disability, although the claimant produced a certificate alleging 44% disability of the limbs [Exh. 69], the Court noted the Doctor’s admission that no treatment was sought for years and the certificate appeared "ready to use".

Applying the *Raj Kumar* steps, the Court held that since the claimant’s work involved rubbing diamonds (sedentary/skilled), the Tribunal’s assessment of 22% functional disability to the whole body was reasonable and required no interference.

The Court enhanced the total compensation from ₹2,20,000/- to ₹3,38,017/-.

Specifically, the "Future Loss of Income" was increased by ₹1,13,172/- and "Actual Loss of Income" by ₹5,550/-.

The Insurance Companies were directed to deposit the additional ₹1,18,017/- with interest and proportionate costs within four weeks.