Motor accident compensation for homemakers must account for income, future prospects, and functional disability.

On 14 June 2002, the appellant was travelling as a passenger in an S.T. bus from Ahmedabad to Dahod when a truck allegedly driven rashly and negligently collided with the bus, causing her grievous injuries, including a fracture of the right tibia and fibula.

She was engaged in tailoring work and was also a homemaker.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dahod, partly allowed her claim and awarded ₹42,200 with interest at 8% per annum.

The appellant challenged the award solely on the quantum of compensation, contending that her income, functional disability, and various heads of damages had been assessed inadequately.

1. Whether the Tribunal had correctly assessed the appellant’s monthly income for determining compensation for permanent disability and loss of future income?

2. Whether the functional disability suffered by the appellant was required to be reassessed from 7% to 10% considering her injuries and avocation?

3. Whether the compensation awarded under actual loss of income, pain and suffering, and special diet, attendant and transportation expenses required enhancement?

The Court applied the principle that compensation under the motor accident claims jurisdiction must be just and reasonable, having regard to the claimant’s actual occupation, functional disability, age, and resulting economic loss.

Relying on Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, 2001 (8) SCC 597, the Court recognised the economic value of homemaking and reassessed the appellant’s monthly income at ₹3,000.

It further applied a 40% addition for future prospects, assessed functional disability at 10%, and applied a multiplier of 15 based on the appellant’s age of approximately 40 years.

The Court also applied the principle that reasonable amounts may be awarded for actual loss of income, pain, shock and suffering, and medical-treatment-related incidental expenses.

The Court found that the Tribunal’s assessment of monthly income at ₹2,000 was too low because the appellant was both a tailor and a homemaker.

In light of Lata Wadhwa, it reassessed her income at ₹3,000 per month and added 40% towards future prospects, resulting in an assessed monthly income of ₹4,200.

Considering the fracture of the tibia and fibula, other injuries, and the impact on her avocation, the Court increased functional disability from 7% to 10%.

Applying the multiplier of 15, it determined future loss of income at ₹67,500 as recorded in the judgment.

It further enhanced actual loss of income for three months to ₹9,000, pain and suffering from ₹7,500 to ₹10,000, and special diet, attendant and transportation expenses from ₹3,500 to ₹10,000.

The total compensation was accordingly recalculated at ₹96,500.

The total compensation was enhanced from ₹42,200 to ₹96,500, resulting in an additional award of ₹54,300, carrying interest at 8% per annum.

Respondent Nos. 2 and 4 were directed to deposit the additional compensation jointly and severally in the ratio determined by the Tribunal, and the impugned award was modified accordingly.

The Tribunal was directed to disburse the entire awarded amount with interest after due verification.

The appeal was disposed of without an order as to costs, and any pending application was also disposed of.