Self-employed claimants below 40 are entitled to a 40% future-prospects addition on notional income.

The appellant, injured in a motorcycle collision on 8 January 2019, claimed compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, alleging that the accident was caused by the offending motorcycle rider’s negligence.

He asserted that he was a commercial driver earning ₹20,000 per month and sustained, among other injuries, a brachial plexus injury.

The Tribunal assessed his notional income at ₹14,000 per month, functional disability at 50%, and awarded ₹19,51,083 with interest at 6% per annum.

He appealed seeking enhancement, including recognition of greater functional disability and addition of future prospects.

1. Whether the Tribunal correctly assessed the appellant’s monthly income and functional disability for calculating loss of future earnings.

2. Whether the appellant was entitled to an addition for future prospects and enhanced compensation under other heads.

A claim for compensation for bodily injury is maintainable under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and an appeal against the Tribunal’s award lies under Section 173(1).

Under Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar [(2011) 1 SCC 343], physical disability of a limb cannot automatically be treated as equivalent to the same percentage of whole-body functional disability; the effect on the claimant’s actual earning capacity, having regard to their occupation, must be assessed.

Under National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680], a self-employed person or a person on fixed/notional income below 40 years is entitled to a 40% addition for future prospects.

The Court also relied on the KSLSA notional-income guidelines applicable to the accident date.

The Court declined to increase the monthly income because the appellant produced no documentary proof of earnings; his driving licence established his competence to drive, not his income.

It therefore affirmed the Tribunal’s use of the KSLSA chart to fix income at ₹14,000 per month.

It also upheld the 50% whole-body functional disability assessment, reasoning that the 100% disability of the right upper limb could not, by itself, establish 100% functional disability, and found the Tribunal had appropriately considered the appellant’s occupation as a driver and the medical evidence.

However, because the appellant was 26 and his income was treated as fixed/notional, the Court held that Pranay Sethi required a 40% addition for future prospects.

Applying that addition, the multiplier of 17, and 50% functional disability, it calculated loss of future earnings at ₹19,99,200.

It found no basis to alter the other compensation heads or the 6% interest rate.

The Court enhanced total compensation from ₹19,51,083 to ₹25,22,283, an increase of ₹5,71,200, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition until realization.

The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced compensation within six weeks of receiving the certified copy of the order; the owner and insurer remained jointly and severally liable.