Absent income proof, a 2015 accident claimant’s notional income is ₹8,000 per month under Karnataka’s Lok Adalat chart.

The appellant, a pedestrian, sustained injuries when a Maruti Alto car allegedly driven rashly and negligently hit him on 19 May 2015.

The Tribunal awarded total compensation of ₹2,31,800 with interest at 6% per annum.

Dissatisfied with the quantum, the claimant appealed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement.

The High Court accepted the Tribunal’s assessment of 15% functional disability but reconsidered the claimant’s notional income and certain heads of compensation.

Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was inadequate and required enhancement

What order should be made on the appeal

Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides the basis for an appeal against a Claims Tribunal’s award.

For a claimant without documentary proof of income, the Court applied the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority’s Lok Adalat income guidelines to determine notional income.

For calculating future loss of earning capacity, the Court applied the multiplier method and the age-based multiplier in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, AIR 2009 SCC 3104; it used multiplier 16 for the claimant, who was 35 years old.

The Court found no basis to disturb the Tribunal’s assessment of 15% functional disability, having regard to the medical evidence and the claimant’s injuries.

Because the claimant produced no proof of his asserted daily earnings, the Court applied the 2015 guideline income of ₹8,000 per month.

Applying the 15% functional disability and multiplier 16, it assessed future loss of earning capacity at ₹2,30,400.

It also increased compensation for the three-month laid-up period, incidental expenses, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities, while leaving the medical-expense award unchanged.

The total compensation was enhanced from ₹2,31,800 to ₹3,55,400, with the enhanced amount carrying interest at 6% per annum from the petition date until realization.

The claimant was denied interest for the 135-day delay in filing the appeal.

The insurer was directed to deposit the compensation with accrued interest before the Tribunal within eight weeks of receiving the certified judgment; the Tribunal’s remaining findings were left undisturbed.