Multiplier and Future Prospects are Applicable in Permanent Disability Cases for Salaried Employees Despite Post-Accident Salary Increments

On November 17, 1999, the appellant, an officer at Union Bank of India, sustained grievous injuries when the bus he was traveling in collided with a truck

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Surendranagar, partly allowed the claim petition (M.A.C.P. No. 62 of 2000), awarding Rs. 73,700/- with 9% interest

The Tribunal assessed the claimant's monthly income at Rs. 3,000/- despite a proved salary slip of Rs. 15,737.50, and applied a multiplier of 5 instead of 13 for the 48-year-old claimant

The appellant challenged the award primarily on the ground of quantum and the failure to hold all respondents jointly and severally liable

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in its assessment of monthly income, future prospects, and the multiplier while calculating compensation for future loss of income

2. Whether the claimant is entitled to future prospects even if he continued in service after the accident

3. Whether the liability of the tortfeasors is joint and several in this case of composite negligence

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (16) SCC 680], which mandated a 30% addition for future prospects for a person with a permanent job aged between 40 to 50 years

Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2009 AIR (SC) 3104] regarding the application of the correct multiplier (13 for age 48)

Sidram v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [2022 INSC 1202] and Soni Sharma v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. [2026 ACJ 109] to establish that continued employment does not disqualify a claimant from seeking compensation for future prospects or loss of earning capacity

Khenyei v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [(2015) 3 ACJ 1441] for the principle of joint and several liability in cases of composite negligence

The court found that the Tribunal ignored documentary evidence (Exh. 77) proving a monthly salary of Rs. 15,737.50

It rejected the insurers' argument that future prospects should be denied because the claimant’s salary increased post-accident, reasoning—per Sidram and Soni Sharma—that loss of earning capacity and promotional prospects subsists regardless of continued employment

The court Corrected the future prospects by adding 30% to the actual salary and updated the multiplier to 13 as per the claimant's age

Regarding liability, the court determined this was a case of "composite negligence" as the claimant was a passenger; thus, under Khenyei, he could recover the full amount from any of the tortfeasors

It held that the original income must be calculated at Rs. 15,737/- plus 30% future prospects, with a multiplier of 13 at 19.5% disability

The court directed Respondent Nos. 2 and 4 (Insurance Companies) to be jointly and severally liable to satisfy the enhanced award with 9% interest from the date of the claim petition