Mr. G.D. Kathuria and Mr. Neeraj Gahlaut, Advocates v. ANIL KHOSLA ANR

Judgment

1. The appellant – claimant, who was injured in a road accident on

04.04.2019, has filed this appeal against an award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [“Tribunal”] dated 13.09.2022 in MACT No. 518/2019. She seeks enhancement of the compensation awarded to her.

2. Notice of this appeal was originally issued only to respondent No. 2 –

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited [“Insurance Company”], by order dated 20.01.2023. Respondent No. 2 has since entered appearance. However, by order dated 09.05.2025, directions were given for service of notice upon respondent No.1 [the driver and owner of the insured vehicle] as well, although it was recorded that liability to make payment lies only on respondent No. 2.

3. In terms of the said order, Mr. G.D. Kathuria, learned counsel for the appellant, states that an effort has been made to serve respondent No. 1 at the addresses mentioned in the memo of parties. However, both addresses were found to be locked, and local inquiry at one of the addresses elicited Signature Not Verified Signed By:SOMYA SATIJA Signing Date:12.12.2025 20:09:40 MAC.APP. 37/2023 Page 1 of 7 information that respondent No. 1 has died.

4. In view of the fact that, in the present case, no recovery rights have been granted to the Insurance Company against respondent No. 1, Mr. Kathuria and Ms. Kanupriya Tiwari, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, submit that service upon respondent No. 1 may be dispensed with.

5. In view of the aforesaid submission, I have heard Mr. Kathuria and Ms. Tiwari on the appeal finally.

6. The facts relating to the accident, which the Insurance Company does not dispute, are that the appellant, alongwith her family members, was travelling from Amritsar to Delhi on 04.04.2019, in a tempo traveler bearing No. DL-01-VC-1856. While the vehicle was parked on the side of the road and the appellant was standing beside it, she was struck by a car bearing No. PB-10-CN-2544 [“insured vehicle”]. The accident resulted in the appellant suffering grievous injuries, for which she was treated at DMC Hospital, Ludhiana. She suffered injuries in both her legs, which required amputation.

7. FIR No. 0120/19 under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, dated 05.04.2019, was registered against the driver, at P.S. Phillaur, Jalandhar. After investigation, a chargesheet was filed in the criminal proceedings.

8. The Tribunal came to a finding of rash and negligent driving against the driver of insured vehicle, and assessed compensation payable to the appellant under the following heads: Sr. No. 1. 2. Medical expenses Future treatment Heads Amount Rs.95,297/- Rs.2,00,000/- Signature Not Verified Signed By:SOMYA SATIJA Signing Date:12.12.2025 20:09:40 MAC.APP. 37/2023 Page 2 of 7 Pain and suffering Conveyance Special diet Attendant charges Rs.2,00,000/- Rs.50,000/- Rs.50,000/- Rs.50,000/- Loss of income during treatment period Rs.72,000/- Loss of earning capacity Loss of amenities of life Loss of marriage prospects

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Artificial limbs Rs.38,88,000/- Rs.2,00,000/- Rs.2,00,000/- Rs.3,56,691/- Rs.53,61,988/- Total

9. Mr. Kathuria submits that the compensation ought to be enhanced on the following grounds: a. That future prospects have not been taken into account while computing loss of earning capacity. b. That, having regard to the finding of the Tribunal that the appellant’s disability constitutes 100% functional disability, the compensation awarded on account of attendant charges [Rs.50,000/-], is inadequate. c. That, while the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,56,691/- on account of artificial limbs, the award does not take into account the cost of maintenance or replacement of the artificial limbs in the course of the appellant’s life.

10. Each of the above aspects is considered below. A. LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITY

11. As far as loss of earning capacity is concerned, the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi1, makes it clear that a victim is entitled to be 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 [hereinafter, “Pranay Sethi”]. Signature Not Verified Signed By:SOMYA SATIJA Signing Date:12.12.2025 20:09:40 MAC.APP. 37/2023 Page 3 of 7 compensated for loss of future prospects in addition to computation based on her current income. The Supreme Court helds as follows: “59.3. While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. 59.4. In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.”

12. In the present case, while calculating such compensation, the Tribunal has considered the appellant’s disability to constitute 100% functional disability. It has accepted the evidence led by the appellant and by the representative of her employer [PW-2], that she was employed as an Accounts Assistant in a company by the name of Archit Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., at a salary of Rs.18,000/- per month. Her salary slips for the three months preceding the accident were exhibited as PW-1/13 (colly). Her salary breakup and appointment letter were also exhibited as Exhibits PW-2/3 and Ex. PW-2/4, respectively. The Tribunal found that the appellant was drawing a gross salary of Rs.18,000/- per month and, therefore, assessed total loss of earning capacity at Rs.38,88,000/-, applying the multiplier of 18, commensurate with the appellant’s age of 21 years. While denying future prospects, the Tribunal has held that Pranay Sethi does not deal with injury cases and, therefore, future prospects are not payable.

13. Having regard to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Jagdish v. Signature Not Verified Signed By:SOMYA SATIJA Signing Date:12.12.2025 20:09:40 MAC.APP. 37/2023 Page 4 of 7 Mohan2 and Pappu Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar3, I am the view of that this approach is in error. The grant of future prospects relates to compensation for future increase in earnings. While it is impossible to determine accurately whether a particular victim would or would not have achieved an increase in his/her income, if the accident had not occurred, the principle applies equally to death cases and injury cases. An estimate has been laid down in Pranay Sethi for the grant of future prospects, which has been followed by the Supreme Court, in injury cases also.

14. Having regard to the evidence on record, that the appellant was drawing a fixed salary of Rs.18,000/- per month and her age of 21 years at the time of the accident, I am the view of that the case falls within the parameters laid down in paragraph 59.4 of Pranay Sethi, and future prospects of 40% ought to be added to her income.

15. The award on account of loss of earning capacity due to disability, is therefore, recomputed as follows: Heads Awarded by this Court Monthly Income Annual Income [18,000 x 12] Future Prospects [2,16,000 x 40%] Rs. 18,000/- Rs. 2,16,000/- Rs. 86,400/- Annual income after addition of future prospects Rs. 3,02,400/- Functional Disability Applicable Multiplier 100% 18 Total Loss of Earning Capacity [3,02,400 x Rs. 54,43,200/- 100% x 18]