Compensation must account for pain, loss of amenities, and income during recovery.

On 8 September 2020, the appellant was injured when a Tata Ace allegedly collided with his motorcycle near APMC Gate, Gokak.

He sustained, among other injuries, a comminuted fracture of the right humerus and a fracture of the right middle finger, and underwent surgery and inpatient treatment

The Tribunal awarded him ₹3,62,869, including ₹1,50,822 for loss of future income, ₹10,000 for pain and suffering, ₹1,97,047 for medical expenses and incidental charges, and ₹5,000 for food and attendant charges.

The claimant appealed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement; the insurer opposed enhancement.

Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was inadequate and required modification

What order should follow from the Court’s determination on enhancement

The appeal was considered under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which provides for an appeal against a Tribunal’s award.

In assessing compensation for loss of future earning capacity, the Court applied the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority income chart to determine notional monthly income where documentary proof was absent, and assessed future loss by reference to the claimant’s disability and the applicable age-based multiplier.

The Court accepted the Tribunal’s assessment of whole-body disability at 13.3% and applied the multiplier of 7, noting that the claimant was 62 years old at the time of the accident.

Because the accident occurred in 2020 and the claimant had produced no documentary proof of income, the Court applied the KSLSA chart and assessed monthly income at ₹13,750, resulting in ₹1,53,615 for loss of future earning capacity.

It found the Tribunal’s awards for pain and suffering and attendant and related expenses inadequate, and awarded ₹40,000 and ₹20,000 respectively; it also awarded ₹30,000 each for loss of amenities and loss of income during the laid-up period, having regard to the injuries and an estimated three-month recovery period.

The medical-expense award of ₹1,97,047 was left undisturbed.

It enhanced the total compensation from ₹3,62,869 to ₹4,70,662, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition until realisation, but excluded interest on the enhanced amount for the delayed period.

The insurer was directed to deposit the compensation with accrued interest before the Tribunal within eight weeks of receiving the certified copy of the judgment; there was no order as to costs.