Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) – Article 136 – Special Leave Petition filed challenging the compensation awarded by MACT and modified by High Court – Leave granted (Para 2)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Order XLI Rule 33 – Appellate jurisdiction exercised to enhance compensation considering evidence on record (Para 11-13)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 279, 337, 338, 427 – FIR lodged against driver of offending vehicle for rash and negligent driving causing grievous injury (Para 4)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Sections 166, 168 – Application for compensation filed – Joint and several liability of respondents upheld – Functional disability enhanced to 90% – Age fixed at 22 years – Compensation recalculated using multiplier method – Future prospects awarded at 40% – Medical expenses, attendant charges, pain and suffering, loss of marriage prospect, and assistant device costs included (Para 6-13)

Functional disability fixed at 90% – Age determined as 22 years based on official documents. Compensation recalculated to Rs.28,93,494/- including future prospects, medical expenses, and other heads. Appeal allowed – Interest to be paid as awarded by MACT – Judgment of High Court and MACT modified.

Subjects: Compensation Enhancement – Functional Disability – Amputation Injury – Multiplier Method – Future Prospects – Pain Suffering – Medical Expenses – Assistant Device – Joint Several Liability

Nature of Litigation: Appeal against compensation awarded by MACT and modified by High Court for motor accident injury resulting in amputation.

Relief Sought: Enhanced compensation for permanent disability, medical expenses, and future prospects.

Reason for Filing: Inadequate compensation awarded by MACT and High Court.

Prior Decisions: MACT awarded Rs.6,70,000/- with 6% interest – High Court enhanced to Rs.10,10,004/- adding Rs.1,00,000/- for pain and suffering and 40% for future prospects.

Issues: a) Whether functional disability was correctly assessed? b) Whether the age of the claimant was properly determined? c) Whether compensation awarded was just and fair?

Submissions/Arguments:

• Appellant argued disability should be 90% due to amputation affecting self-employment.

• Age should be 22 years as per documentary evidence.

• Income assessment and future prospects not appropriately considered by lower courts.

Ratio Decidendi:

• Self-employed individuals with permanent disability affecting movement are entitled to higher compensation due to loss of earning capacity.

• Age determination from official documents is paramount in calculating compensation under multiplier method.

• Future prospects must be considered while awarding compensation for permanent disability.