Subsequent salary increase is no ground to deny compensation for future loss of income.

On December 16, 2015, the appellant was traveling on a motorcycle when he was struck from behind by a Maruti Van driven negligently by respondent No. 1

The appellant, an employee of the SRP Department (ONGC Mehsana), sustained serious injuries resulting in 28% permanent functional disability (as agreed by both parties)

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Panchmahals awarded a global compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- for future loss of income, noting that the appellant’s salary had actually increased from Rs. 18,000/- to Rs. 35,000/- post-accident, thereby concluding there was no actual loss of earning capacity

The appellant challenged this award seeking an enhancement of quantum

1. Whether a subsequent increase in the victim's salary justifies a refusal to award compensation for future loss of income due to permanent disability

2. Whether the compensation awarded under non-pecuniary heads and actual loss of income was just and adequate

The Court applied the standardized assessment of compensation as established in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [(2009) 6 SCC 121], which dictates the use of specific multipliers based on age (multiplier of 16 for age 32)

It further relied on National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017 ACJ 2700] regarding the inclusion of 50% additional income for "future prospects" for those in permanent employment

Additionally, the Court cited Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain v. Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation [2022(0) AIJEL-SC 70212], affirming that a subsequent increase in salary does not negate the entitlement to compensation for functional disability and loss of future prospects

The Court found the Tribunal’s reliance on the appellant’s post-accident salary hike to deny future loss of income legally erroneous

Reasoning that compensation must be calculated based on the income at the time of the accident (Rs. 5,200/-), the Court held that disability affects the victim's routine life and future potential regardless of immediate salary increases

Applying the Pranay Sethi formula, the Court added 50% for future prospects (Rs. 7,800/-) and applied a 28% disability factor, resulting in a monthly loss of Rs. 2,184/-

Using the multiplier of 16, the future loss was reassessed at Rs. 4,19,328/-

Furthermore, the Court adjusted medical expenses to Rs. 3,85,000/- (deducting the insurance reimbursement already received) and awarded additional amounts for non-pecuniary heads like pain, shock, and suffering, which the Tribunal had ignored

The Court directed respondent No. 2 (Insurance Company) to deposit the additional amount with interest as previously awarded within four weeks

The Tribunal was also directed to deduct deficit court fees on the enhanced amount prior to disbursement