Motor accident compensation must include income from all established sources, including agricultural supervision.

On 31 May 1998, the claimant was travelling with his two minor sons on a scooter when a truck, allegedly driven rashly and negligently on the wrong side of the road, collided with the scooter.

The claimant sustained grievous injuries, including shortening of his right leg, and underwent five surgical procedures and prolonged hospitalisation.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded ₹4,24,018 with 10% annual interest, after assessing 30% contributory negligence on the claimant’s part.

The claimant appealed seeking enhancement of compensation and challenging the finding of contributory negligence.

1. Whether the claimant could reagitate the finding that he was responsible for 30% of the negligence when the same finding in connected claim petitions arising from the accident had attained finality.

2. Whether the Tribunal correctly assessed the claimant’s income, future prospects, functional disability, multiplier, medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, attendant charges, and actual loss of income.

3. Whether the claimant was entitled to enhancement of compensation and, if so, to what amount.

The Court applied the principles governing compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, including assessment of just compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses.

It held that income from all established sources may be considered while determining loss of earning capacity.

For future prospects, the Court relied on the principle recognised in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (16) SCC 680, applying a 40% addition to the income of a claimant aged about 40 years.

The multiplier method was applied with reference to the claimant’s age, using a multiplier of 15.

The Court also applied the doctrine of res judicata or finality of an adjudicated issue, holding that the negligence finding could not be reopened after attaining finality in connected claim petitions arising from the same accident.

The Court declined to reconsider the claimant’s challenge to contributory negligence because the Tribunal had decided several claim petitions arising from the same accident, and its 30% negligence finding had not been challenged in three connected matters; consequently, that finding had attained finality and operated against reagitation of the issue.

On quantum, the Court found that the Tribunal had omitted the claimant’s agricultural and supervisory income and therefore assessed total monthly income at ₹8,500, comprising ₹7,000 salary and ₹1,500 agricultural income.

Adding 40% future prospects resulted in a monthly income of ₹11,900.

Applying the undisputed functional disability of 46% and multiplier of 15, the Court assessed future loss of income at ₹9,85,320.

It further enhanced compensation for pain, shock and suffering from ₹75,000 to ₹1,00,000 due to five surgeries and prolonged hospitalisation; awarded ₹75,000 for loss of amenities owing to the shortened and limping right leg; enhanced medical expenses to the proved amount of ₹1,65,720; awarded ₹50,000 for attendant charges; and reassessed actual loss of income at ₹1,02,000.

After aggregating the compensation at ₹15,03,040 and deducting 30% for contributory negligence, the net compensation was determined at ₹10,52,128.

The Court maintained the finding of 30% contributory negligence but enhanced the claimant’s net compensation from ₹4,24,018 to ₹10,52,128.

The claimant was accordingly granted additional compensation of ₹6,28,110, with interest at 10% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realisation.

The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the additional amount with the Tribunal within six weeks of receiving the order, whereupon the Tribunal was directed to disburse the awarded compensation and interest after due verification.

No order was made as to costs.