Permanent-disability compensation must reflect 20% whole-body disability and future prospects.

The claimant was injured when a car struck him on 6 November 2021.

He sustained fractures, including fractures of the acetabulum, ischiopubic rami and rib, and received inpatient treatment at Columbia Asia Hospital, Mysuru.

He sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

The Tribunal awarded ₹4,89,000 with interest at 6% per annum.

The claimant appealed, seeking enhancement.

1. Whether the Tribunal had understated the claimant’s whole-body disability and, consequently, the compensation for loss of future income.

2. Whether the compensation for loss of income during the laid-up period required enhancement.

The appeal was brought under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, and the claim arose under Section 166.

Compensation must be assessed by reference to the evidence of injury and disability, the claimant’s income, and the applicable multiplier.

The Court relied on National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, to add 10% to the claimant’s income towards future prospects.

For the 2021 accident, the Court accepted the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority chart income of ₹15,000 per month.

The Court considered the fractures and the treated doctor’s evidence of 60% limb disability and 20% whole-body disability.

It held that the Tribunal’s 12% whole-body assessment should be increased to 20%.

Applying the monthly income of ₹15,000, 10% future prospects, a multiplier of 9 and 20% disability, it calculated ₹3,56,400 for loss of future income.

Given the injuries, it also found that three months’ bed rest was warranted and increased laid-up-period income from ₹30,000 to ₹45,000.

It left the other heads undisturbed as just and reasonable.

The Court enhanced total compensation from ₹4,89,000 to ₹6,46,400, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition until realization.

The insurer was directed to deposit the compensation and accrued interest within eight weeks, and the amount was ordered to be released to the claimant upon identification.

The claimant was denied interest for the 231-day delay in filing the appeal; there was no order as to costs.