2025 Supreme(MP) 947

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
Rajendra Kumar Vani, J.
Bajrang Pratap Singh @ Amit Bhadoriya – Appellant
Versus
Mukesh Kushwah And Others – Respondents
Misc. Appeal No. 303 of 2017
Decided On : 18-06-2025

Compensation must be computed based on cogent evidence of income, failing which minimum wages apply. Loss of earning capacity is a distinct assessment from physical disability, requiring courts to look at the individual's future potential and the evidence in its entirety rather than relying solely on medical certificates.

Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 166 and 168 - Personal injury - Compensation - Principle of 'just and fair' compensation - Burden of proof regarding income - Claimants must provide cogent and reliable evidence to establish income; assertions alone are insufficient - Where evidence of employment is discredited, reliance upon statutory minimum wages for skilled labor is permissible. (Paras 9, 10, 11, 12)

(B) Quantum of compensation - Permanent disability - Assessment of loss of earning capacity - Percentage of permanent disability per se does not equate to percentage of loss of earning capacity - Determination of loss of earning capacity must be based on evaluation of physical disability, nature of profession, age, and individual profile - Tribunal holds power to assess earning capacity based on evidence rather than relying solely on disability certificates provided by experts. (Paras 15, 17, 18, 19)

(C) Future prospects - Where an injured party is not in permanent employment, addition to notional income towards future prospects at 40% is appropriate as per standard judicial precedent. (Para 22)

Facts of the case:
The appellant suffered grievous injuries including multiple fractures and a head injury in a vehicular accident while traveling on a motorcycle. The lower tribunal awarded compensation, which the appellant challenged, seeking enhancement. The appellant claimed a substantial monthly salary supported by a certificate; however, the investigation revealed no substantiating evidence (such as attendance registers or tax returns) for the employment, and the office address for the alleged employer was found to be non-existent. The tribunal had assessed disability based on a medical certificate, but the High Court re-evaluated the compensation under various heads, including pain and suffering, medical expenses, and loss of earning capacity.

Findings of Court:
The court held that in the absence of reliable evidence to prove actual income, minimum wages for skilled labor should be used for calculation. It rejected the 100% loss of earning capacity claim, instead assessing it at 30% after considering the educational background and physical requirements of the injured individual. It further adjusted the amounts for medical treatment, attendant expenses, and pain and suffering to ensure the compensation was just and reasonable.

Issues: The main issues were the proof of income for a self-employed or private sector worker, the method for assessing loss of earning capacity arising from permanent physical disability, and the appropriate multiplier and percentage of future prospects to be applied in personal injury cases.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that compensation must be 'just and fair,' based on the individual circumstances of the injured party. It established that merely producing a disability certificate does not automatically dictate the loss of earning capacity; instead, the court must perform an independent assessment of earning ability. Furthermore, the burden of proof for monthly income lies strictly with the claimant, and failing such proof, the court is justified in using government-notified minimum wages to compute the base income.

Result: Appeal allowed; total compensation enhanced to Rs. 9,66,660/-.