Facts
On 28 December 2016, Durugamma was travelling as a pillion rider when a lorry collided with the motorcycle, causing her a fracture of the right hip joint and other injuries.
Source reference: p. 3She claimed that she worked as a coolie and that her injuries impaired her ability to work.
Source reference: p. 4The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded her global compensation of ₹33,500 with interest at 6% per annum.
Source reference: p. 5She appealed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement.
Source reference: pp. 2, 5Issues
1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was inadequate and warranted modification.
Source reference: p. 6, para. 11(i)2. What order should follow from the determination of the appeal.
Source reference: p. 6, para. 11(ii)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 a Claims Tribunal.
Source reference: p. 2For calculating loss of future income, the Court applied the multiplier method and relied on Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298, to select the multiplier based on the claimant’s age.
Source reference: p. 8, para. 15In the absence of documentary proof of income, the Court used the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority’s guidelines to determine notional income for the year of the accident.
Source reference: p. 7, para. 14Reasoning
The Court considered the claimant’s fracture, other injuries, medical evidence, and the doctor’s assessment of disability. Although the doctor assessed disability at 15%, the Court found that 5% whole-body disability was reasonable on the evidence.
Source reference: p. 7, para. 13As the claimant was 23 years old and her income was unproved, the Court adopted monthly notional income of ₹8,750 and a multiplier of 18, awarding ₹94,500 for loss of future income.
Source reference: pp. 7–8, paras. 14–16It also awarded ₹20,000 for loss of income during a three-month recovery period, ₹5,000 for food, nourishment, attendant and conveyance expenses, and ₹15,000 for loss of amenities; the Tribunal’s ₹25,000 award for pain and suffering was maintained.
Source reference: pp. 8–9, paras. 17–20Holding
The Court partly allowed the appeal, holding that the claimant was entitled to total compensation of ₹1,59,500 instead of ₹33,500.
The enhanced compensation was directed to carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition until payment, with the insurer to deposit it with accrued interest within four weeks of receiving the certified judgment.
Source reference: p. 10, para. 22Acts & Sections Cited
1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Motor Vehicles Act, 19881
Original Court PDF
DURUGAMMA W/O. DURGAPPAvsN. NAGESHWARA RAO
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
