Paraplegia resulting in 90% permanent physical disability warrants assessment of 100% functional loss of earning capacity.

The Appellant No. 1, a 33-year-old Cafe Manager earning ₹3,60,000 per annum, sustained severe spinal injuries and traumatic paraplegia in a motor vehicle accident on 15-02-2021

The accident occurred when a Tata Truck overtook and struck the Appellant’s vehicle, causing it to fall fifty feet off the road

A medical authority certified the Appellant with 90% permanent locomotor disability

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), Gangtok, awarded ₹74,96,244 as compensation in MACT Case No. 11 of 2024

The Appellants challenged this award, seeking an enhancement based on 100% functional disability, inclusion of future prospects, and revised attendant charges

The Court applied Section 166 and 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 regarding claim petitions and appeals

It relied on Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) to distinguish between physical disability and the resulting loss of earning capacity

The principle for adding 40% for future prospects for victims below 40 years was drawn from National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017)

Regarding attendant charges and medical expenses, the Court followed the multiplier-based approach established in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand (2020)

The multiplier of '16' for the age group of 33 years was adopted from Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corp. (2009)

For non-pecuniary damages, the Court cited K.S. Muralidhar v. R. Subbulakshmi (2024) to justify an award of ₹15,00,000 for pain and suffering in cases of 90-100% disability

The Court observed that while the medical certificate stated 90% disability, the Appellant’s traumatic paraplegia rendered him paralyzed from the waist down, bedridden, and incapable of performing basic daily functions or pursuing his vocation as a manager

Consequently, the Court treated the functional disability as 100% loss of earning capacity

The Court found the MACT erred by not adding 40% for future prospects, which is mandatory for a 33-year-old victim under Pranay Sethi

Regarding attendant charges, the Court rejected the MACT’s lump-sum award of ₹3,00,000, ruling that under Kajal, such charges must be calculated using the multiplier system to account for inflation and life expectancy; it fixed the rate at ₹15,000 per month (₹500/day) and applied a multiplier of 16

Furthermore, following K.S. Muralidhar, the Court increased the compensation for pain, suffering, and loss of amenities to ₹15,00,000, noting the severe nature of the injuries

However, it disallowed "cost of litigation" as there was no Supreme Court precedent for such a head

The Court directed that the amounts already paid by the Insurance Company (totaling ₹87,69,578) be deducted from the new total

The Respondent No. 1 (Insurance Company) was ordered to pay the balance amount to Appellant No. 1 within one month with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition (12-03-2024), failing which a default interest of 12% per annum would apply

The Court held that for victims with total permanent disability, compensation must ensure "just" reparation through the application of the multiplier method for both loss of income and attendant care