The assessment of disability must adequately reflect the impact on earning capacity, necessitating appropriate multipliers and comprehensive evaluations of pain and suffering in compensation claims.

JUDGMENT :

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.

1. The challenge in the instant Appeal is to the computation of compensation, arrived at by the Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gangtok, Sikkim (hereinafter, the “MACT”), in MACT Case No.11 of 2024 (Nikhil Subba and Others vs. The Branch Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company and Others), vide Judgment dated 26-12-2024.

2. Learned Counsel for the Appellants put forth the contention that the Appellant No.1 had suffered 90% locomotor permanent disability as duly established by Exbt-29 (collectively), Disability Certificate of the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India, issued by the Medical Authority, East District, Sikkim. The document specified that the Appellant had been in a road traffic accident and was thereby afflicted with traumatic paraplegia. The Appellant No.1 had also relied on Exbt-8, Wound Certificate which detailed his injuries including fracture of vertebrae. The MACT however failed to access his disability as 100%, which flies in the face of the decision of this Court in The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited vs. Yoel Subba and Others , 2024 SCC OnLine Sikk 28 which had relied on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Another , (2011) 1 SCC 343 while assessing such disability.

(i) Advancing other grounds for the Appeal and walking this Court through the computation made by the MACT, Learned Counsel for the Appellants contended that, the annual income of the Appellant No.1 prior to the accident was Rs.3,60,000/- (Rupees three lakhs and sixty thousand) only. However, while calculating the loss of future earnings per annum, the MACT took into consideration only 90% of the income prior to his accident and thereby placed it erroneously at Rs.3,24,000/- (Rupees three lakhs and twenty four thousand) only, instead of Rs.3,60,000/- (Rupees three lakhs and sixty thousand) only. It was also urged that for loss of future earnings, 40% ought to have been included in the computation, in view of the fact that, the Appellant No.1 was thirty-three years old at the time of the accident. However, the MACT failed to do so and instead employed the multiplier of '16' to Rs.3,24,000/- (Rupees three lakhs and twenty four thousand) only, to arrive at an amount of Rs.51,84,000/- (Rupees fifty one lakhs and eighty four thousand) only. There is no challenge to the adoption of 16 as multiplier. That, the amount for service of attendant was pegged at Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs) only, whereas this Court in Yoel Subba (supra), by reference to several Judgments of the Supreme Court had allowed a sum of Rs.32,40,000/- (Rupees thirty two lakhs and forty thousand) only, to the victim therein. On this facet however, Learned Counsel fairly conceded that the Appellant No.1 is not entitled to a sum of Rs.32,40,000/- (Rupees thirty two lakhs and forty thousand) only, for services of an attendant as computed in Yoel Subba (supra) but would definitely be entitled to Rs.28,80,000/- (Rupees twenty eight lakhs and eighty thousand) only. It was next argued that the fact of the Appellant's disability has not been decimated during his cross-examination. It was also admitted that the Appellants are not entitled to “cost of litigation” granted by the MACT as no compensation under this head has been computed by any of the Judgments of the Supreme Court.

3. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 contended that although a Cross Appeal has not been filed however the amount granted by the MACT for pain and suffering and loss of amenities is exorbi