Bata Showroom Worker Who Kept His Job After Crash Gets Rs 30,000 More, But Karnataka HC Finds No Future-Income Loss

The claimant sustained a crush injury to his right arm and forearm, a supracondylar fracture of the right humerus, and a fracture of the right ulna in a road accident on 20 June 2022.

The MACT awarded compensation of ₹5,86,500, including ₹3,50,000 for reduced disability of employment, but did not award loss of future income because the claimant continued working at a Bata showroom.

He appealed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement, including compensation for future loss of income and increased amounts for pain and suffering and loss of amenities.

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

Under Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, where permanent disability is established, the Tribunal must assess its effect on the claimant’s earning capacity; the percentage of physical disability does not by itself determine the loss of earning capacity.

Sandeep Khanuja v. Atul Dande recognises that disability may cause future income loss where it affects the claimant’s particular profession, while V. Ramachandra v. Rajesh Naik was also considered in relation to claims by employees who remain in service.

The Court found that the claimant had not shown that he left or was removed from his job and concluded that he continued working at the Bata showroom; accordingly, it found no established loss of future earnings.

The Tribunal had nevertheless compensated the lasting effect of the disability through the separate award of ₹3,50,000 for reduced disability of employment, which the Court considered appropriate.

Having regard to the serious injuries sustained, however, it increased compensation for pain and suffering by ₹20,000 and for loss of amenities by ₹10,000.

The claimant was awarded an additional ₹30,000, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition until realization, but without interest for the 316-day delay in filing the appeal.

Respondents 2 and 4, the insurers, were directed to deposit the enhanced compensation in the ratio of 80:20 within six weeks, and the claimant was entitled to release of the entire enhanced amount.