Andhra Pradesh Family’s Compensation Appeal Fails: Karnataka HC Says Tribunal’s ₹12,000 Monthly Income Exceeded the ₹9,000 Benchmark

01Facts

The claimants— the deceased’s wife, minor children, parents and brothers—appealed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement of compensation awarded for his death in a road accident in Andhra Pradesh on 24 July 2022.

pp. 3–4 · ¶ 3

The Tribunal assessed compensation at ₹30,56,760, including loss of dependency calculated using a monthly income of ₹12,000.

p. 5 · ¶ 5

The claimants contended that the income should have been assessed under the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority (KSLSA) notional-income chart.

p. 5 · ¶ 8

The insurer opposed enhancement, arguing that the claimants and deceased were residents of Andhra Pradesh and that the Tribunal’s income assessment already exceeded the applicable Andhra Pradesh benchmark.

pp. 6–7 · ¶ 9

02Issues

i.1. Whether the claimants were entitled to enhancement of compensation

p. 7 · ¶ 10–11

ii.2. Whether the deceased’s notional income should be assessed by reference to the Karnataka or Andhra Pradesh benchmark, given the claimants’ and deceased’s residence

pp. 8–9 · ¶ 12–17

03Law Applied

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

p. 3 · ¶ 1

In assessing notional income for compensation, the Court considered the deceased’s and claimants’ residence and applied the Andhra Pradesh benchmark rather than the KSLSA chart, relying on Manager, Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Banda Saraswathi & Others, MFA No. 5097/2023, and M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. S. Kamal Basha & Others, MFA No. 8682/2024.

pp. 8–9 · ¶ 15–17

Those decisions were cited for notional monthly incomes of ₹7,000 for 2018 and ₹9,000 for 2022, respectively.

p. 9 · ¶ 16–17

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173

04Reasoning

The accident occurred in Andhra Pradesh, and the claimants’ permanent address, as well as the first claimant’s affidavit evidence, identified them as residents of Andhra Pradesh; the Court also noted that no proof of the deceased’s income had been produced.

pp. 7–8 · ¶ 12–15

It therefore used the Andhra Pradesh notional-income benchmark of ₹9,000 per month for 2022, rather than the KSLSA chart.

p. 9 · ¶ 15–17

Since the Tribunal had already assessed income at ₹12,000 per month, the Court found that the existing award did not warrant enhancement. It also noted that the insurer had filed no appeal and had satisfied the award.

pp. 9–10 · ¶ 17