01Facts
On 25 February 2022, the claimant, a contract staff nurse earning ₹24,800 per month, was travelling in a KSRTC bus when its rear tyre burst. She sustained fractures to both legs and was hospitalised for six days.
pp. 4, 7–8The Tribunal awarded her ₹16,88,711, including compensation for 15% disability, ten months’ loss of income, and attendant charges, with interest at 9% per annum.
p. 5KSRTC appealed against the quantum, and the claimant filed a cross-objection seeking enhancement.
pp. 3, 5–602Issues
i.1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal required modification in light of the evidence concerning the claimant’s injuries, disability, employment and loss of income
p. 7 · ¶ 10ii.2. Whether the compensation awarded under the various heads, including interest, required adjustment
pp. 10–12 · ¶ 15–2003Law Applied
The appeals were brought under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which provides for an appeal against an award of the Claims Tribunal; the claimant’s cross-objection was filed under Order XLI Rule 22(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
p. 1, 3In assessing compensation, the Court considered the evidence of injury and disability, the claimant’s actual employment and earnings, and the proof supporting claimed periods of lost income and attendant needs. It calculated loss of future earning capacity using the claimant’s monthly income, annualisation, multiplier of 16 and 15% disability.
p. 11 · ¶ 18Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173
04Reasoning
The Court found that the claimant continued working at the same hospital and received the same salary after the accident; her assertion that she rested for ten months was unsupported by documents. It therefore retained the Tribunal’s 15% disability assessment but removed the 40% addition for future prospects, calculating future loss at ₹7,14,240.
pp. 8–11 · ¶ 12–18It reduced loss of income during the laid-up period to four months’ salary, as the claimed ten-month period was unproved, and found the awards for attendant charges and other heads excessive in light of the evidence. It also reduced interest from 9% to 6% per annum.
pp. 9–12 · ¶ 15–19, 21(d)05Holding
The Court partly allowed KSRTC’s appeal and dismissed the claimant’s cross-objection.
pp. 12–13 · ¶ 21It reduced the total compensation from ₹16,88,711 to ₹9,34,215 and directed that interest be paid at 6% per annum from the date of the petition until realisation.
pp. 12–13 · ¶ 21It directed the Tribunal to draw a modified award and ordered the deposited amount to be transmitted to the Tribunal.
pp. 12–13 · ¶ 21Original Court PDF
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTCvsSMT B J SHANTHAKUMARI
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
