Rise in income after accident does not preclude compensation for future loss of earning capacity and future prospects.

On May 29, 2011, the appellant, a watchman at an arts college, was hit by a motorcycle driven negligently on the wrong side of the road

The appellant sustained a crush injury to his left leg, resulting in a compound fracture and subsequent lower limb amputation

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded ₹4,05,500 but denied compensation for future loss of income on the grounds that the appellant’s salary as a government employee had increased after the accident

The appellant approached the High Court seeking enhancement of the award

1. Whether a claimant is entitled to compensation for future loss of income and future prospects even if their actual salary increased after the accident

2. Whether the compensation awarded under the heads of "Pain, Shock, and Suffering" and "Loss of Amenities" was just and adequate given a 60% functional disability

The Court applied Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 regarding appeals

It relied on *Rajkumar v. Ajaykumar* (2011) 1 SCC 343 and *Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain v. UPSRTC* (2022) to establish that a post-accident salary increase does not preclude compensation for future prospects, as such rises may be due to external factors and the disability still curtails earning potential

It followed *Sarla Verma v. DTC* (2009) 6 SCC 121 for the multiplier of 15

and *National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi* (2017) 16 SCC 680 to grant a 50% addition for future prospects for a permanent government employee

Finally, it cited *Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh* (2003) 2 SCC 274, confirming the court’s power to award compensation exceeding the original claim

The Court noted that despite the disability certificate assessing 70% leg disability, the parties had agreed to 60% body disability via a pursis

The Court rejected the Insurance Company’s argument that no future income loss occurred; it reasoned that "just compensation" must place the victim in their pre-accident position, and a handicap inevitably affects career progression and skill capacity regardless of incremental pay hikes

Using a monthly income of ₹13,000, the Court added 50% for future prospects (totaling ₹19,500), applied the 60% disability factor and a multiplier of 15, resulting in ₹21,06,000 for future loss of income

The Court further found the Tribunal’s awards for non-pecuniary damages "too meager," increasing "Pain, Shock, and Suffering" from ₹25,000 to ₹1,50,000 and "Loss of Amenities" from ₹25,000 to ₹1,00,000 to reflect the gravity of an amputation

This represents an enhancement of ₹23,06,000 over the Tribunal’s award

The Court directed the Insurance Company to deposit the additional amount with 9% interest within four weeks, clarifying that the benevolent nature of the Act allows for awarding "just compensation" even if it exceeds the amount initially claimed by the petitioner