Karnataka High Court
Transport, Maritime, and Aviation LawCivil Law

Future implant-removal expenses are compensable, but do not carry interest.

SRI MYALARAPPA vs SRI. JAYADEVA

Karnataka High CourtJUDGMENT: September 25, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Future implant-removal expenses are compensable, but do not carry interest.. SRI MYALARAPPA vs SRI. JAYADEVA. Karnataka High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The claimant sought compensation for injuries sustained in a road traffic accident on 11 November 2023, allegedly caused by the rash and negligent riding of a motorcycle.

Source reference: pp. 2–4

The MACT awarded him ₹5,33,235, including compensation for pain and suffering, medical expenses, laid-up-period income loss, permanent disability and loss of amenities.

Source reference: pp. 2–4

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

Source reference: p. 2

The High Court considered his age, assessed disability, injuries, treatment and need for implant-removal surgery.

Source reference: pp. 4–6
02

Issues

1. Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of compensation for permanent disability and future loss of income required enhancement.

Source reference: pp. 4–5

2. Whether the claimant was entitled to enhanced compensation under other heads, including pain and suffering, loss of amenities, laid-up-period income and future medical expenses.

Source reference: pp. 5–6
03

Law Applied

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

Source reference: p. 2

In assessing compensation for permanent disability, the Court applied the multiplier method, using the claimant’s age to select the multiplier and his income and disability percentage to calculate future loss of income.

Source reference: p. 4

It adopted the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority’s 2023 notional income of ₹16,250 per month and accepted a multiplier of 9 for a claimant aged 60 and a disability assessment of 20%.

Source reference: p. 4

The judgment cites no precedent.

Source reference: no citation
04

Reasoning

The Court found the Tribunal’s multiplier of 9 and assessment of disability at 20% justified, but substituted the 2023 notional monthly income of ₹16,250 for ₹16,000.

Source reference: p. 4

Applying the multiplier method, it recalculated future loss of income as ₹3,51,000.

Source reference: p. 4

Having regard to the claimant’s injuries, it enhanced compensation for pain and suffering to ₹60,000 and loss of amenities to ₹40,000, and allowed ₹40,000 for two months’ laid-up-period income.

Source reference: p. 5

It also awarded ₹30,000 for future implant-removal surgery, while maintaining the other awarded amounts.

Source reference: pp. 5–6
05

Holding

The appeal was allowed in part.

The Court increased total compensation from ₹5,33,235 to ₹6,38,635, granting an enhancement of ₹1,05,400.

Source reference: p. 7

The claimant was awarded interest at 6% per annum from the petition date until realization on ₹75,400; no interest was payable on the ₹30,000 awarded for future medical expenses.

Source reference: pp. 7–8

The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest within six weeks, and the claimant was permitted to receive the entire enhanced amount.

Source reference: p. 8
06

Acts & Sections Cited

1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.

Motor Vehicles Act, 19881

Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF

SRI MYALARAPPAvsSRI. JAYADEVA

Karnataka High Court · September 25, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment