IMPORTANT POINTS
Injuries suffered in motor accident – Self-employed victims are also entitled to future prospects on amount of compensation.

JUDGMENT

ARAVIND KUMAR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals have been filed assailing the common judgment and order dated 02.08.2021 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in MFA Nos. 5356/2018 (MV) and 3155/2018 (MV), arising from the award dated 20.02.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (MVC No. 8056/2016). By the impugned judgment, the High Court partly allowed the appeal preferred by the insurer, dismissed the claimant’s appeal for enhancement, and modified the quantum of compensation while affirming the finding of 20% contributory negligence on the part of the claimant.

3. The accident occurred on 19.11.2016 at approximately 6:00 a.m. on the Peenya flyover, Bengaluru. The appellant, aged 38 years and engaged in the tailoring business, was driving an Omni car bearing registration KA-52- M-4021 when it collided with lorry (AP-04-TX-4507), allegedly parked in the middle of the flyover without indicators or reflective caution. The appellant sustained grievous head and bodily injuries, including skull fractures, frontal hemorrhage, optic nerve trauma with resultant visual impairment, and bilateral wrist fractures. He was first treated at Premier Sanjeevini Hospital and later hospitalized at Sparsh Hospital from 19.11.2016 to 05.12.2016.

4. The Tribunal determined the appellant’s monthly income at Rs.8,000/, applied the multiplier of 15 (age 38), assessed disability at 35%, and by adding 50% of his income towards loss of future prospects, awarded a total compensation of Rs.17,01,140/- which was reduced to Rs.13,60,912/- after applying 20% deduction for contributory negligence. On appeal, the High Court revised the income to Rs.9,500/- but omitted future prospects, retained disability at 35%, and awarded Rs.16,74,640/-. After applying 20% deduction towards contributory negligence, the net amount awarded was Rs.13,44,712/-. Hence, these appeals.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant fairly submitted that the finding of 20% contributory negligence is not pressed and said finding may be affirmed. The concession is recorded and, having considered the circumstances of the case, we find no reason to disturb conclusion so arrived at by courts below.

6. The only issue that arises for our consideration is whether the High Court erred in excluding future prospects and adopting a lower percentage of disability, thereby resulting in less compensation being awarded. We find merit in the appellant’s submission on both counts.

7. The monthly income of Rs.9,500/-, as fixed by the High Court is accepted by both sides during the course of hearing, is affirmed. Though the appellant is self-employed, the law is now well settled that such claimants are entitled to future prospects. In Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Limited and Others , (2012) 6 SCC 421 this Court extended future prospects to self- employed persons. In National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others , (2017) 16 SCC 680 , this view was reiterated. We therefore add 40% towards future prospects.

8. As regards disability, the evidence of PW3 Dr. Prathibha Sharan, Neuropsychologist from NIMHANS, who assessed neuro-behavioural and cognitive disability at 41.77% using validated testing (NIMHANS Battery), was neither rebutted nor doubted. There was no contrary medical evidence. The Tribunal and High Court adopted 35% without any reasoning. We therefore take the functional disability at 41.77%.

9. The recalculated compensation for loss of future earning capacity is as follows: