An unexplained disability assessment cannot support 76% whole-body disability; the court reduced it to 20%.

Dharma sought compensation for injuries sustained in a road accident on 5 November 2016 involving a canter vehicle insured by National Insurance.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal partly allowed his claim and awarded ₹13,37,809 with 6% annual interest.

Dharma appealed seeking enhancement; the insurer appealed disputing liability and quantum.

The High Court recorded that the charge sheet attributed the accident to the canter driver and that the spot mahazar placed the accident five feet from the footpath on an 18-foot-wide road.

The Tribunal had assessed whole-body disability at 76%; the High Court reconsidered that assessment and the compensation calculation.

Whether the Tribunal was justified in fastening liability on the insurer, including in light of the insurer’s contentions regarding contributory negligence and alleged permit and fitness-certificate violations.

Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was just and proper, including the assessment of disability, income, future prospects, and compensation under individual heads.

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

In reassessing compensation, the Court used the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority’s notional-income figure of ₹9,500 per month for 2016, applied a multiplier of 17 for the claimant’s age of 30, and allowed 40% future prospects in calculating loss of future income due to disability.

The Court also assessed disability by reference to the evidentiary support for the medical assessment and considered the injury and treatment period in fixing compensation for pain, amenities, and loss of income.

The Court rejected the insurer’s negligence challenge because the charge sheet was against the canter driver and the spot mahazar recorded no brake or tyre marks; it inferred that the driver should have applied the brakes if the claimant had suddenly entered the road.

The Court therefore upheld the finding of sole negligence against the driver. It also rejected the alleged permit and fitness-certificate breaches because the insurer produced no supporting documents.

On quantum, the Court found the 76% whole-body disability assessment inadequately explained: the doctor who prepared the psychological assessment was not examined, and the disability report did not show how the figure was calculated.

It reduced the disability to 20%, but used ₹9,500 as monthly income, allowed 40% future prospects, and applied a multiplier of 17, yielding ₹5,42,640 for future income loss.

It enhanced compensation for pain and suffering, amenities, and the three-month laid-up period, while retaining medical and attendant expenses.

It allowed both appeals in part and directed the insurer to deposit the awarded compensation with 6% annual interest before the Tribunal within six weeks, including the amount already deposited.

The claimant was denied interest for the 262-day delay in filing his appeal, and the amount in deposit was ordered transmitted to the Tribunal.