Permanent disability compensation must reflect functional loss of earning capacity, not merely medical disability percentage.

The appellant-claimant suffered multiple grievous injuries in a motor vehicle accident on 28.09.1998 caused by the rash and negligent driving of Jeep No. HNC-588 by respondent No.1, which was owned by respondents No.2 and 3.

The finding of negligence was recorded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonipat, and was not challenged in appeal.

The claimant, aged 24 years, sustained fractures of the femur and tibia, underwent several surgeries and prolonged treatment at various hospitals, and suffered 60% permanent physical disability, including stiffness of the left knee and ankle and shortening of the left leg by two inches.

The Tribunal awarded ₹4,71,000 under the heads of medical expenses, pharmacist charges, attendant charges, pain and suffering, and transportation expenses, with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.

The claimant appealed seeking enhancement of compensation.

Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was inadequate and required enhancement in view of the claimant’s permanent disability, prolonged treatment, and multiple surgeries?

Whether the claimant was entitled to compensation for loss of future earning capacity, future medical treatment, pharmacist and attendant charges, special diet, transportation, loss of amenities, and loss of marriage prospects?

What was the appropriate extent of the claimant’s functional disability, income, future prospects, and multiplier for assessing loss of future income?

The Court applied Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, under which an injured claimant is entitled to just compensation for injuries caused by a motor vehicle accident.

Relying on G. Ravindranath @ R. Chowdary v. E. Srinivas, 2013 (3) RCR (Civil) 934, the Court recognised compensation under pecuniary heads such as treatment expenses, loss of earnings during treatment, loss of future earnings, and future medical expenses, and under non-pecuniary heads such as pain and suffering, loss of amenities, loss of expectation of life, and loss of marriage prospects.

The Court applied Sanjay Verma v. Haryana Roadways, 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 914, and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, for addition of future prospects, and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121, for selection of the multiplier.

It further applied the principle in Yadava Kumar v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2010 (4) PLR 242, that loss of future income must be assessed with reference to the claimant’s diminished earning capacity and functional disability, rather than merely the percentage of medical disability.

Compensation must be fair, reasonable, equitable, and neither a windfall nor a pittance.

The Court found that the claimant’s prolonged treatment, repeated surgeries, bone grafting, fixation procedures, 60% permanent disability, and two-inch shortening of the left leg justified reassessment of compensation.

Although the claimant claimed monthly earnings of ₹15,000 from his chemist shop, the absence of income-tax returns or other cogent proof led the Court to assess his income at ₹5,000 per month.

Since he was 24 years old, 40% was added towards future prospects, resulting in a notional monthly income of ₹7,000.

The Court assessed his functional disability at 40%, observing that he could not operate the business as before, stand for long periods, or independently undertake activities connected with the chemist shop.

Applying a multiplier of 18, the loss of future income was calculated at ₹6,04,800.

The Court also enhanced treatment and future medical expenses to ₹2,00,000, pharmacist charges to ₹59,500, attendant charges to ₹25,500, transportation expenses to ₹25,000, and awarded ₹25,000 for special diet.

In view of the permanent disability and its effect on the claimant’s mobility, daily activities, and marriage prospects, ₹50,000 was awarded for loss of amenities and marriage prospects.

Pain and suffering was assessed at ₹1,00,000, having regard to the severity of the injuries and repeated surgical interventions.

The total compensation was enhanced from ₹4,71,000 to ₹10,89,800.

The enhanced amount was calculated at ₹6,18,800, rounded off to ₹6,19,000, payable over and above the Tribunal’s award.

The enhanced compensation was directed to carry interest at 9% per annum from 24.07.2000, the date of filing of the claim petition, until realization, and was made payable by respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and severally.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of.