Multiplier Applied to Post-Retirement Period Only Where Injured Remains in Secure Salary-Earning Employment.

On December 7, 2011, the claimant (Respondent No. 1), a 49-year-old Beldar with the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), was injured when a DTC bus insured by the Appellant struck his motorcycle from behind.

He sustained 26% permanent physical disability in his right lower limb.

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded a compensation of Rs. 10,45,777/- with 9% interest.

The Insurance Company appealed the award, contesting the Tribunal's use of a higher monthly income (Rs. 23,071 based on Form 16) instead of the exhibited salary slip (Rs. 19,045) and the application of a multiplier of ‘13’ despite the claimant remaining in active government service.

Whether the Tribunal erred in adopting a higher income figure for loss of future earning capacity than the one established by the exhibited salary slip.

Whether a multiplier of ‘13’ is applicable when the claimant continues to be in gainful employment, or if the multiplier should be restricted to the post-retirement period.

The court applied the principle that where an injured claimant continues in gainful employment with no immediate loss of income, the multiplier for "loss of future earning capacity" should be applied only to the post-retirement period (usually age 60).

This followed the precedents of *Desh Raj Singh Gautam v. Sunil Kumar* [2016:DHC:415], which established the use of a multiplier of ‘9’ for claimants retiring at age 60.

and *TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sh. Dipanjan Ghosh* [2016:DHC:1821], which held that loss of earning capacity must be computed with reference to income at the time of superannuation, including future prospects.

The Court agreed with the Appellant that the income figure of Rs. 19,045/- proven by the DDA Executive Engineer (PW-4) via salary slip (Ex. PW-4/A) should be the consistent basis for calculation, rather than the Form 16 figure.

Regarding the multiplier, the Court noted that since the respondent remains a secure employee of the DDA, there is no immediate loss of income.

Following settled law, the Court determined that the loss of future earning capacity would only manifest post-retirement.

Consequently, it replaced the multiplier of ‘13’ with ‘9’.

While reducing the pecuniary award, the Court concurrently increased non-pecuniary damages (Pain and Suffering; Loss of Amenities) from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 1,00,000 each to account for the claimant’s distress and disability.

It held that (1) the monthly income must be fixed at Rs. 19,045/- as per the salary slip, and (2) the appropriate multiplier for an employee continuing in service is ‘9’ for the post-retirement phase.

The Court ordered the Insurance Company to be refunded the excess deposit and directed the partial release of funds to the claimant.