Absent proof of actual income, 2018 accident claims use Karnataka’s prescribed monthly notional income of ₹11,750.

The appellant, aged 53 at the time of the 2018 accident, sustained fractures to her right humerus and left scaphoid when the respondent’s bus was negligently driven.

The Tribunal awarded her ₹3,24,394, including ₹1,45,200 for loss of future earning capacity based on a monthly income of ₹5,000; it did not award compensation for loss of income during the laid-up period.

The appellant appealed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement. Negligence and the respondent’s liability were not disputed.

Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of the appellant’s income, disability-related loss of future earning capacity, and other heads of compensation required enhancement.

Whether the enhanced compensation should carry interest at 9% per annum, subject to exclusion of the period of delay in filing the appeal.

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

Where actual income is not established by documentary evidence, the Court applied the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority’s notional-income figure for 2018—₹11,750 per month—to assess the appellant’s income.

It used the multiplier of 11 for the appellant’s age of 53 and applied the assessed functional disability of 22% to calculate loss of future earning capacity.

On interest, the Court referred to Puttamma v. K.L. Narayana Reddy, (2013) 15 SCC 45, and United India Insurance Company v. Malyadari, noting that 9% per annum was appropriate in the circumstances.

The Court found the Tribunal’s ₹5,000 monthly-income figure inadequate because the accident occurred in 2018 and there was no documentary evidence establishing actual income; it therefore substituted the KSLSA figure of ₹11,750.

It upheld the 22% functional-disability assessment, which was not challenged by either party and was consistent with the appellant’s agricultural work and reliance on both upper limbs.

Applying the age-appropriate multiplier, it recalculated future earning loss at ₹3,41,220.

Given the fractures, surgery, 12-day hospitalisation, follow-up treatment, and the appellant’s occupation, it allowed three months’ loss of income and increased compensation for attendant, nourishment, and related expenses, as well as loss of amenities.

It retained the 9% interest rate but excluded the appeal-delay period in accordance with the prior order.

The enhanced amount carries interest at 9% per annum from the petition date until realisation, excluding the period of delay; the respondent was directed to deposit it, with accrued interest, within eight weeks, subject to credit for sums already deposited.