Spinal injury and resulting mobility loss justified enhancing the claimant’s disability assessment to 70%.

Two occupants of a car were injured in a collision with a truck.

The Tribunal attributed 50% negligence to each driver and awarded compensation of ₹9,42,000 to Nafisa Rajubhai Barot and ₹8,41,400 to Dipti Gagan Shethi.

It assessed Nafisa’s disability at 40%, her monthly income at ₹10,000, and Dipti’s disability at 35%.

The insurer appealed on negligence and quantum; Nafisa cross-objected, seeking enhanced compensation.

1. Whether the Tribunal correctly apportioned negligence equally between the truck driver and the car driver?

2. Whether the Tribunal correctly assessed Nafisa’s disability and compensation, including her future loss of income and medical and attendant expenses?

3. Whether the compensation awarded to Dipti required reconsideration in the absence of an appeal by her?

The judgment cites no specific statute or precedent.

negligence may be apportioned between drivers based on the evidence, including the physical damage recorded in the panchnama

disability for compensation purposes must be assessed in light of the injury’s effect on the claimant’s mobility and earning capacity

future loss of income may be calculated by applying an appropriate disability percentage, future prospects, and multiplier to the claimant’s income.

The Court upheld equal apportionment of negligence because the panchnama recorded damage to the right side of both vehicles, supporting the Tribunal’s conclusion that both drivers were responsible; the insurer had not produced the truck driver’s chargesheet.

For Nafisa, the hospital records documented post-accident spinal disc herniation and stenosis, which the Court considered inconsistent with the Tribunal’s reliance on unrelated prior kidney and ovarian conditions to limit disability.

It assessed her disability at 70%, while maintaining her monthly income at ₹10,000; adding 25% future prospects and applying a multiplier of 13, it calculated future loss of income at ₹13,65,000.

It also increased medical expenses to ₹1,50,000, food, nutrition and attendant charges to ₹75,000, and loss of amenities to ₹1,00,000.

As Dipti had not appealed, the Court declined to revisit her award.

The enhanced amount was ordered to carry interest at 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition until payment, with eight weeks granted for deposit.

The Court stated that the insurer’s appeals were dismissed and Nafisa’s cross-objection was partly allowed.

“the appeal is allowed in part”