Temporary disability does not justify future-earnings compensation without proof of permanent earning-capacity loss.

On 4 February 2015, Sanjay Gupta was injured while travelling in a bus driven by respondent No. 1.

He sought compensation, claiming, among other things, loss of income and permanent disability.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded compensation but recorded the aggregate as ₹1,84,026; it had assessed monthly income at ₹6,000 and a three-month period of lost income, but awarded only ₹12,000 under that head.

Gupta appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement, including for disability, future medical expenses, and other non-pecuniary losses.

Whether the Tribunal’s calculation of the aggregate compensation and loss of income required correction.

Whether the evidence established permanent disability affecting earning capacity, or supported an award for future medical expenses.

Whether compensation for special diet and attendant expenses warranted enhancement.

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for an appeal against a Claims Tribunal award.

Under Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343, temporary disability is distinct from permanent disability, and a disability percentage alone does not establish permanent loss of earning capacity; compensation for future loss of earnings requires proof of permanent disability and its impact on earning capacity.

Future medical expenses may be awarded where reliable medical evidence establishes the need for future treatment and the likely expenditure.

The Court found an apparent arithmetic error: the amounts awarded under the Tribunal’s individual heads totalled ₹2,21,026, not ₹1,84,026.

Because the Tribunal had fixed income at ₹6,000 per month and incapacity at three months, loss of income should have been ₹18,000 rather than ₹12,000.

The Medical Board’s 10% disability assessment was temporary and expected to resolve within three months; there was no evidence of permanent disability or resulting loss of earning capacity, so no future-earnings award was justified.

Although further surgery was said to be possible, no reliable estimate or other evidence established its likely cost; future medical expenses were therefore not awarded.

The Court nevertheless considered the awards for special diet and attendant expenses inadequate in light of the injuries and treatment.

The Court enhanced special-diet expenses from ₹5,000 to ₹20,000 and attendant expenses from ₹10,000 to ₹20,000, corrected loss of income to ₹18,000, and fixed total compensation at ₹2,52,026.

The additional compensation carries interest at the rate awarded by the Tribunal; the remaining conditions of the award were left unchanged.