Motor accident compensation must reflect homemaker status and functional disability when assessing future income loss.

On 16 January 2011, the claimant, Dariyaben Ramsinh Parmar, was travelling as a passenger in an auto-rickshaw when a Maruti car, allegedly driven rashly and negligently, collided with the rickshaw from behind. She suffered multiple fractures and other serious injuries.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kheda at Nadiad, partly allowed her claim petition and awarded ₹1,76,600 with interest at 8.5% per annum.

Challenging the award only on the ground of quantum, the claimant appealed before the Gujarat High Court.

Whether the claimant’s monthly income was correctly assessed at ₹3,000, or whether it required reassessment having regard to the applicable minimum wages and her work as a labourer and homemaker?

Whether the claimant was entitled to an addition of 10% towards future prospects, considering that she was 52 years old?

Whether the functional disability ought to be enhanced from 30% to 35% for calculating future loss of income?

Whether the compensation under pain, shock and suffering; special diet, attendant charges and transportation; and actual loss of income required enhancement?

The Court applied the principles governing assessment of just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, including determination of income, future loss of earning capacity, functional disability and non-pecuniary damages.

Relying on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, and Sidram v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2023) 3 SCC 439, the Court held that a 10% addition towards future prospects was appropriate for a claimant aged 52 years.

The multiplier of 11 was applied according to the claimant’s age.

Compensation must be assessed on the basis of the claimant’s functional disability and the actual impact of the injuries on her earning capacity, rather than merely relying on the medical percentage of disability.

The Court found the Tribunal’s assessment of monthly income at ₹3,000 to be inadequate because the minimum wages for a skilled worker at the time of the accident were ₹4,710, and the claimant also performed homemaking duties. Her income was therefore reassessed at ₹5,000 per month.

Applying the principles in Pranay Sethi and Sidram, the Court added 10% for future prospects, resulting in a notional monthly income of ₹5,500.

Considering the claimant’s fractures of the right femur and right distal radius, and her continuing difficulty in walking, climbing stairs, squatting, kneeling and lifting her arm, the Court increased functional disability from 30% to 35%.

Applying the multiplier of 11, future loss of income was calculated at ₹2,54,100.

The Court further enhanced damages for pain, shock and suffering to ₹30,000, special diet, attendant charges and transportation to ₹20,000, and actual loss of income for four months to ₹20,000.

Medical expenses of ₹25,809 remained undisturbed.

The total compensation was enhanced from ₹1,76,600 to ₹3,49,909, resulting in additional compensation of ₹1,73,309.

The respondent Insurance Companies were directed to deposit the additional amount, with interest at 8.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization, in the ratio determined by the Tribunal, within six weeks.

The Tribunal was directed to disburse the amount to the claimant after deducting any deficit court fees and completing due verification.