Upper-limb disability is assessed at one-fourth when calculating whole-body disability.

The claimant appealed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Additional District Judge and Additional MACT, Udupi, for injuries sustained in a road accident on 3 August 2018.

The Tribunal awarded ₹6,64,529, including ₹3,40,200 for loss of future income based on 9% whole-body disability, ₹75,000 for loss of income during treatment, and ₹20,000 for pain and suffering.

The claimant sought reassessment of compensation in light of his injuries and disability.

1. Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of the claimant’s whole-body disability and consequent loss of future income required enhancement.

2. Whether the compensation awarded under pain and suffering and loss of amenities was adequate in view of the injuries sustained.

The appeal was brought under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which permits an appeal against an award of a Claims Tribunal.

In assessing permanent disability, the Court treated one-fourth of the 12% disability to the right upper limb as whole-body disability, and combined that 3% with the 15% whole-body disability assessed by the maxillofacial surgeon.

The Court held, on the facts of this case, that future prospects should not be added where the assessed disability was below 20%.

It assessed loss of future income using the claimant’s monthly income, multiplier and whole-body disability percentage.

The Court accepted the Tribunal’s notional monthly income of ₹12,500 and its award for the six-month treatment period.

It reassessed whole-body disability at 18%: 15% as assessed by the maxillofacial surgeon, plus 3% derived from one-fourth of the orthopaedic surgeon’s 12% right-upper-limb assessment.

Applying the multiplier of 18, while excluding future prospects because disability was below 20%, it calculated loss of future income at ₹4,86,000.

Given the injuries, it increased pain and suffering from ₹20,000 to ₹1,00,000 and loss of amenities from ₹10,000 to ₹80,000; it otherwise maintained the relevant awards.

Total compensation was enhanced from ₹6,64,529 to ₹9,60,329, resulting in additional compensation of ₹2,95,800, carrying interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition until realization.

The claimant was denied interest for the 354-day delay in filing the appeal.

The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced amount within six weeks, and the claimant was permitted to withdraw the entire enhancement.