Severely injured young claimants may receive additional compensation for loss of marriage prospects.

On 29 May 2019, the claimant, a pillion rider, was injured in a collision involving the motorcycle on which he was travelling and the respondents’ car.

He sustained a head injury and fractures to both bones of his right leg, and was hospitalised for a total of 51 days.

He was a second-semester B.Com student and claimed that he also worked part-time, earning ₹15,000 per month, but produced no documentary proof of that employment.

The Tribunal awarded total compensation of ₹25,52,406, including compensation for future loss of income assessed on 27% whole-body disability and a multiplier of 18.

The claimant appealed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement, particularly on the grounds of income assessment and loss of marriage prospects.

Whether the claimant was entitled to enhancement of compensation, including a higher assessment of income and compensation for loss of marriage prospects.

Whether future prospects should be added to the claimant’s income when calculating compensation for permanent disability.

Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for an appeal against a Tribunal’s award.

In assessing compensation for permanent disability, the Court considered the claimant’s established income, disability and applicable multiplier; it upheld the Tribunal’s use of a multiplier of 18 and its assessment of whole-body disability at 27%.

The Court noted that National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, addressed future prospects in death cases, and stated that future prospects may also be considered in injury cases involving serious injuries, but not in every case.

It distinguished Ram Vishal Gupta v. Shokken (Delhi High Court, MAC Appeal No. 266/2019), where the claimant’s completed degree and evidence of graduate-level employment prospects supported a higher income assessment.

The Court found no evidence to support the claimant’s alleged part-time earnings or to demonstrate his academic performance or likely employment prospects; it therefore declined to disturb the Tribunal’s notional-income assessment.

It also found no basis to interfere with the Tribunal’s assessment of disability or application of the multiplier.

However, considering the seriousness of the injuries, the Court held that the Tribunal had not accounted for the loss of marriage prospects and awarded an additional global sum of ₹50,000.

It declined to add future prospects, finding that the claimant’s case did not warrant that addition under the principle it stated.

The Tribunal’s award was modified by granting the claimant an additional ₹50,000 in global compensation, carrying interest at 6% per annum, in addition to the compensation already awarded.

The insurer was directed to deposit the amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within eight weeks; the remaining directions concerned disbursement, preparation of the modified award and transmission of the record.