Amputee Farmer’s Accident Compensation Raised To ₹51.67 Lakh As Karnataka HC Upholds Crane Owner’s Liability For Unlicensed Driver

In brief

The question

Whether the MACT’s assessment of disability and compensation required modification, including the amounts awarded for future loss of income and an artificial limb.

The court held

Both appeals were allowed in part.

It also directed

The total compensation was enhanced to ₹51,67,151, an increase of ₹13,94,640, with interest at 6% per annum from the petition date until realization, except that no interest was payable on the enhanced amount for the artificial limb and its maintenance.

The owner was directed to deposit the enhanced compensation within six weeks.

The enhanced compensation was to be kept in fixed deposit for 15 years, with ₹5,00,000 released every five years.

01Facts

On 29 December 2022, Prakash sustained injuries, including an above-knee amputation of his right leg, in an accident involving a crane owned by Khilari Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

pp. 4–6, 9

The MACT awarded him ₹37,72,511 with 6% annual interest, assessed whole-body disability at 40%, and held the owner liable after finding that the crane’s driver had no driving licence.

pp. 4–6, 9

The owner appealed against liability and quantum; Prakash appealed for enhancement

pp. 4–6, 9

02Issues

i.Whether the MACT’s assessment of disability and compensation required modification, including the amounts awarded for future loss of income and an artificial limb.

pp. 10–13

ii.Whether the owner was liable for the award where the crane’s driver was found to have no driving licence.

pp. 6–8, 12–13

iii.Whether the MACT’s awards under other heads, including attendant and related expenses, required alteration.

pp. 9–11

03Law Applied

Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for appeals against awards of a Claims Tribunal.

pp. 2–3

The Court considered Sections 3 and 181 of the Act in relation to the driver’s alleged failure to hold a driving licence.

pp. 6–8, 12–13

It also referred to M. Paramesh v. VRL Logistics Ltd. and Doddaiah v. ICICI Lombard Motor Insurance Co. Ltd., where functional disability was assessed at 100% for claimants whose occupations were mason and coolie, respectively; it treated the claimant’s occupation as relevant to the assessment in this case.

p. 10

The Court also considered Showkath Ali Khan v. Managing Director on the cost of an artificial limb.

p. 7

Provisions in the judgment · 4 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173 Section 181 Section 7 Section 3

04Reasoning

The Court assessed functional disability at 80%, rather than 40%, taking account of the above-knee amputation and Prakash’s work in agriculture and milk vending, while finding that he could continue milk vending with an artificial limb.

pp. 10–11

Applying that assessment, the 13-year multiplier, monthly income of ₹15,500 and 10% future prospects, it calculated future income loss at ₹21,27,840.

pp. 10–11

It allowed ₹8,00,000 for artificial limbs and maintenance, estimating the need for four limbs over the claimant’s expected lifespan.

p. 11

It otherwise upheld the pain-and-suffering, amenities, medical-expense and laid-up-period awards, but reduced attendant, conveyance, food and nourishment expenses to ₹34,000 for 34 hospital days.

pp. 9–11

On liability, the charge sheet and investigating officer’s evidence supported the finding that the driver lacked a licence; the owner produced no licence to contradict that evidence.

pp. 12–13

The Court therefore affirmed the owner’s liability.

pp. 12–13