Proved salary records and employer testimony justify reassessing income at ₹8,000 with 40% future prospects.

On 11 February 2015, Rahul Kumbhabhai Dafda was travelling in a luxury bus bearing registration No. GJ-12-T-4793 from Manfara to Bhachau. The bus tyre burst while being driven at excessive speed and in a rash and negligent manner, causing the bus to overturn and resulting in grievous injuries to the claimant.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gandhidham, partly allowed Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 88 of 2015 and awarded ₹9,02,737 with interest at 7% per annum.

The claimant appealed, challenging the quantum of compensation. He contended that his monthly income as a laboratory assistant was ₹8,000, that future prospects ought to be added, and that the amounts awarded for loss of income, pain and suffering, special diet, attendant charges and transportation were inadequate.

The functional disability assessed at 43% and the medical-expense award of ₹5,10,717 were not disputed.

1. Whether the claimant’s monthly income should be reassessed from ₹4,000 to ₹8,000 on the basis of the salary certificate and the employer’s evidence?

2. Whether 40% should be added to the assessed income towards future prospects and whether the resulting compensation for future loss of income was correctly computable using the 43% functional disability and multiplier of 18?

3. Whether the compensation awarded for actual loss of income, pain, shock and suffering, special diet, attendant charges and transportation required enhancement?

The Court applied the principles governing award of just compensation in motor accident claims under the Motor Vehicles Act, including assessment of actual loss of income, future loss of earning capacity, functional disability, medical expenses and non-pecuniary damages.

It relied on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, for adding future prospects to the established income, and on Sidram v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2023) 3 SCC 439, as cited by the claimant in support of such addition.

Where income is supported by reliable oral and documentary evidence, it must be assessed on that evidence rather than on an arbitrary lower figure.

Future loss of income is calculated by applying the appropriate future-prospect addition, the percentage of functional disability, the annual income and the age-based multiplier.

The Court found that the claimant had proved the salary certificate at Exhibit 55 and had examined the proprietor of Momay Pathology Laboratory, who confirmed that the claimant worked as a laboratory assistant and earned ₹8,000 per month. It therefore reassessed the monthly income at ₹8,000 instead of ₹4,000.

Applying a 40% addition for future prospects, the monthly income became ₹11,200. Since the undisputed functional disability was 43% and the applicable multiplier was 18, the Court calculated future loss of income as ₹10,40,256 (₹11,200 × 43% × 12 × 18).

In view of the claimant’s multiple surgeries, prolonged hospitalisation, outpatient treatment and eight-month period of incapacity, the Court enhanced actual loss of income to ₹64,000, representing eight months’ income.

Medical expenses of ₹5,10,717 were left undisturbed because they were not challenged.

Considering the seriousness of the injuries, repeated surgeries, eight months of bed rest and the claimant’s inability to stand or walk without support, pain, shock and suffering were enhanced to ₹1,00,000, while special diet, attendant charges and transportation were enhanced to ₹50,000.

The Court reassessed the total compensation at ₹17,64,973, comprising ₹10,40,256 for future loss of income, ₹64,000 for actual loss of income, ₹5,10,717 for medical expenses, ₹50,000 for special diet, attendant charges and transportation, and ₹1,00,000 for pain, shock and suffering.

After deducting the ₹9,02,737 already awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant became entitled to additional compensation of ₹8,62,236, together with interest at 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization.

The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the additional amount with interest within six weeks, after which the Tribunal was directed to disburse it to the claimant after applicable deductions and verification.