: In assessing compensation for motor vehicle accidents, courts should consider actual income, future prospects, and functional disability to determine an appropriate award.

1. The appellant has challenged the award of the Claims Tribunal whereby the compensation of Rs.3,96,314/- has been awarded to the appellant. The appellant seeks enhancement of award amount.

2. On 07th May, 2006, the appellant was going to Mata Sundri College as a pillion rider along with her friend, Shabnam on a motor cycle bearing No. DL-7S AK-4409, driven by Shahid Ahmed Kureshi. When the motor cycle reached I.T.O. Chowk, Shahid stopped the motor cycle on the red light. When the light turned green, Shahid started his motor cycle and was crossing I.T.O. Chowk when he was hit by the offending car which jumped the red light. The accident resulted in grievous injuries namely, fracture of the right shaft of femur of the right leg of the appellant. The police registered FIR No. 229/2006 under Sections 279/337 IPC at P.S. I.P.Estate against the driver of the car.

3. The appellant was admitted in St. Stephen Hospital from 08th May, 2006 to 11th May, 2006 where she underwent a surgery for illizarov fixator with iron nails. The appellant was again admitted in St. Stephen Hospital from 11th September, 2006 to 16th September, 2006 and 26th October, 2006 to 01st November, 2006. The fixator attached to the right leg of the appellant was removed on 30th July, 2007. The injuries suffered by the appellant resulted in 58% permanent disability relating to the right lower limb.

4. The appellant was aged 21 years at the time of the accident and was a student of BA (final year) in Mata Sundri College. The appellant claimed to be employed in ICICI Bank Limited, Delhi University Branch Delhi at a basic salary of Rs.4,500/- per month. However, in the absence of any documentary proof of income, the Claims Tribunal took the minimum wages of Rs.3,719/- per month of an under-graduate, applied the multiplier of 18 to compute the loss of earning capacity as Rs.1,60,661/- by taking the loss of functional disability as 20%. The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.44,979/- for treatment expenses, Rs.50,000/- for pain and sufferings, Rs.40,000/- for conveyance, attendant charges and special diet, Rs.50,000/- for mental and physical shock, Rs.25,000/- for disfiguration, Rs.50,000/- for loss of inconvenience/hardship/mental stress, Rs.20,000/- for loss of amenities of life, Rs.25,000/- loss of marriage prospects and Rs.29,752/-for loss of income during treatment. The total compensation computed is Rs.4,95,392/-. The Claims Tribunal held the appellant contributory negligent and deducted 20% towards contributory negligence and net compensation awarded is Rs. 3,96,314/-.

5. The counsel for the appellant urged at the time of hearing that there is no contributory negligence on the part of the appellant. It is submitted that non-wearing of helmet has not contributed to the accident and, therefore, finding of contributory negligence is erroneous. It is further submitted that the finding of negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle had reached finality in the earlier award dated 19th May, 2010 and this Court, vide judgement dated 21st September, 2017 in MAC.APP.642 of 2010, remanded back the matter only with respect to the computation of compensation. Learned counsel for the appellant further urged that the Claims Tribunal assessed the functional disability of 20% which is on a lower side. It is further submitted that the deceased was a graduate working in ICICI Bank Limited drawing a salary of Rs.4,500/- at the time of the accident and, therefore, the minimum wages of a graduate and future prospects should have been taken into consideration in terms of National Insurance Co. Limited v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680. It is further submitted that the compensation awarded under the head of pain and suffering, disfiguration and loss of marriage prospects is on the lower side.

6. The appellant is present in court and her condition has been seen. This Court is of the view that the functional disability of the appellant taken as 20% is on a lower side. Considering the