Permanent disability compensation must include future prospects and non-pecuniary damages for loss of amenities.

On December 22, 2012, the appellant-petitioner was struck by a Toyota Innova (No. PB-11AA-0752) driven negligently by respondent No. 1

The appellant sustained grievous injuries to her head and right leg, resulting in 17% permanent disability in her right lower limb

She claimed to be an employee of an electronics firm, but no evidence of employment or income was produced

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Solan, awarded Rs. 3,75,994/- with 7% interest, treating her as a housewife with a monthly income of Rs. 5,000/- and adding 50% for future prospects

The appellant moved the High Court for enhancement of compensation, arguing for a higher monthly income and additional heads of damages

1. Whether the Tribunal correctly assessed the monthly income of the appellant as a housewife at Rs. 5,000/-

2. Whether the Tribunal erred in applying a 50% addition for future prospects instead of the 40% mandated by precedent for the appellant's age group

3. Whether the appellant is entitled to compensation for "loss of amenities of life" due to her permanent disability

The Court applied the principles of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages in personal injury cases as established in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011)

For the valuation of a housewife’s gratuitous services, it relied on Arun Kumar Agarwal v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2010)

Regarding the computation of future prospects, the Court followed National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017), which stipulates a 40% addition for self-employed individuals or those on fixed salaries below age 40

The multiplier was determined via Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009)

Compensation for non-pecuniary loss, specifically the inability to lead a normal life, was guided by R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. (1995)

The Court found that in the absence of employment evidence, the Tribunal correctly assessed the appellant’s income at Rs. 5,000/- per month by valuing her services as a housewife

However, the Court identified a legal error in the calculation of future prospects; since the appellant was 35 years old and lacked a permanent job, the addition should have been 40% per Pranay Sethi, not 50%

Applying the 40% addition, the monthly income was re-fixed at Rs. 7,000/-, and using the 17% functional disability and a multiplier of 16, the future loss of income was adjusted to Rs. 2,28,480/-

Furthermore, the Court noted that the Tribunal failed to award damages for "loss of amenities of life."

Given the appellant's 17% disability, which causes stiffness and a limp, the Court determined she was entitled to Rs. 50,000/- for the loss of ability to walk, run, or sit normally

The Court held that while the income assessment was fair, the future prospects percentage required downward correction, and the non-pecuniary head for loss of amenities required an upward addition

The interest rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition and the liability of the insurance company remained as per the original award