01Facts
On December 4, 2010, the appellant, a third-year B-Tech student, was injured when his motorcycle was hit by a Santro car driven rashly and negligently by Respondent No. 1
¶ 2An FIR was registered under Sections 279/338 of the IPC
¶ 2The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), via an award dated April 3, 2013, granted compensation of Rs. 6,19,386/- but rejected the claim for ‘loss of income’ as the appellant was a student
¶ 1, 5Subsequently, the Disability Board of Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital certified the appellant with a 29% physical impairment of the left lower limb
¶ 3The appellant sought enhancement of the award specifically regarding ‘loss of future earning capacity’
¶ 502Issues
i.1. Whether the notional income of an engineering student should be assessed for calculating loss of future earning capacity despite not being employed at the time of the accident
¶ 5-6ii.2. Whether the physical disability of 29% in the lower limb warrants a specific assessment of functional disability to determine future loss of earnings
¶ 803Law Applied
The court relied on S. Mohammed Hakkim v. National Insurance Co. Ltd & Ors. (2025:INSC:905) and Navjot Singh v. Harpreet Singh (2020), which established that the notional income of a degree-course engineering student should not be equated to that of an unskilled worker and should be fixed at a minimum of Rs. 20,000/- per month
¶ 6, 8The court applied the multiplier method from Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) and the standards for ‘future prospects’ (40%) from National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017)
¶ 6, 8Furthermore, the court applied the principles of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr. (2011) to assess functional disability relative to the physical impairment for the purpose of compensation
¶ 8Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 279Section 338
04Reasoning
The court observed that the appellant’s status as a 3rd-year engineering student at a premier institute indicated a bright future, and his lower limb impairment would reasonably impact his technical career requiring mobility
¶ 7-8Following the S. Mohammed Hakkim precedent, the court fixed his notional income at Rs. 20,000/- per month
¶ 8To this, a 40% addition for future prospects was made, and a multiplier of 17 was applied based on the appellant's age
¶ 8, 10While the physical impairment was 29%, the court assessed the functional disability at 20% for the computation of loss of future income
¶ 8The court further determined that previously awarded amounts for ‘loss of fees’ and ‘studies’ should be subsumed into a broader head of ‘loss of amenities of life’, awarded at Rs. 1,00,000/-
¶ 905Holding
The High Court allowed the appeal and enhanced the total compensation from Rs. 6,19,386/- to Rs. 17,83,286/-
¶ 10The court held that the enhanced amount of Rs. 11,63,900/- shall carry interest at 9% per annum from the date of the disability assessment (April 22, 2014)
¶ 11-12The court directed the insurer to deposit the amount with the MACT within six weeks, with specific directions for the immediate release of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the claimant and the remainder to be placed in phased Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) of Rs. 25,000/- each to ensure financial security
¶ 13Original Court PDF
Satish KumarvsKumari Kanika Sibal & Ors
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
