Karnataka High Court
Transport, Maritime, and Aviation LawCivil Procedure and Evidence

A claimant without permanent disability is not entitled to compensation for loss of future earning capacity.

UMA D U vs RELIANCE GEN INS CO LTD

Karnataka High CourtJUDGMENT: October 09, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
A claimant without permanent disability is not entitled to compensation for loss of future earning capacity.. UMA D U vs RELIANCE GEN INS CO LTD. Karnataka High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The claimant, then a first-year B.Com. student, sustained a degloving injury to the plantar aspect of her left foot in a road accident involving a TATA 407 goods vehicle on 16 April 2022.

Source reference: p. 3, p. 6

She received treatment at hospitals in Kanakapura and Bengaluru, including an inpatient stay of about 15 days.

Source reference: p. 3, p. 6

The Tribunal awarded her ₹3,00,186 under the heads of pain and suffering, medical expenses, attendant and nourishment charges, and loss of amenities.

Source reference: p. 4

Dissatisfied, she appealed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement, including compensation for loss of future earning capacity and marriage prospects.

Source reference: p. 2, p. 4–5
02

Issues

1. Whether the claimant was entitled to enhancement of compensation, including compensation for loss of future earning capacity and marriage prospects

Source reference: p. 5–6, para. 9

2. Whether the claimant had established a loss of academic year or permanent disability warranting compensation under the claimed heads

Source reference: p. 6, para. 11
03

Law Applied

The appeal was brought under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which provides for an appeal against an award of a Claims Tribunal.

Source reference: p. 2

The Court assessed the compensation by reference to the evidence concerning the claimant’s injuries, treatment, and disability. It cited no precedent or separate statutory test for determining the specific heads of compensation in its reasoning.

Source reference: p. 6–7, paras. 11–12
04

Reasoning

The Court found no basis to compensate the claimant for loss of an academic year: although she was in her first year of B.Com. at the time of the accident, she was studying in her second year when she gave evidence.

Source reference: p. 6, para. 11

It upheld the Tribunal’s refusal to award compensation for loss of future earning capacity because the doctor’s evidence did not establish permanent physical disability.

Source reference: p. 6–7, para. 12

However, it considered that no amount had been awarded for marriage prospects and that the attendant-charge award was low; it therefore granted additional global compensation of ₹1,00,000.

Source reference: p. 7, para. 12
05

Holding

The appeal was allowed in part. The claimant was awarded ₹1,00,000 in addition to the Tribunal’s award of ₹3,00,186, with interest at 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation.

The insurer was directed to deposit the compensation and accrued interest before the Tribunal within eight weeks of receiving the certified judgment; disbursement and deposit were to follow the Tribunal’s order.

Source reference: p. 7–8, para. 13
06

Acts & Sections Cited

1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.

Motor Vehicles Act, 19881

Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF

UMA D UvsRELIANCE GEN INS CO LTD

Karnataka High Court · October 09, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment