Karnataka High Court
Transport, Maritime, and Aviation LawCivil Law

Future loss must account for occupational disability and applicable future prospects.

MR. SANDEEP J. B. vs SRI. KUNNA SIDDANAYAK

Karnataka High CourtJUDGMENT: September 28, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Future loss must account for occupational disability and applicable future prospects.. MR. SANDEEP J. B. vs SRI. KUNNA SIDDANAYAK. Karnataka High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The claimant sought compensation for injuries sustained in a road traffic accident on 4 March 2023, allegedly caused by the rash and negligent driving of a Mahindra Bolero.

Source reference: p. 2

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded ₹9,56,298, including compensation for pain and suffering, medical expenses, future loss of income and future medical expenses.

Source reference: p. 3

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

Source reference: p. 2
02

Issues

Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of compensation required enhancement in light of the claimant’s injuries, occupation, disability and age.

Source reference: pp. 4–7

Whether the claimant was entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation, including the enhanced amount for future medical expenses.

Source reference: pp. 8–9
03

Law Applied

The appeal was brought under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Source reference: p. 2

The Court assessed compensation by considering the claimant’s age, injuries, occupation, functional disability, income, future prospects, treatment needs and other relevant heads of loss.

Source reference: pp. 4–7

It applied the 2023 notional income of ₹16,250 per month, multiplier 18 for a claimant aged 20, and 40% future prospects when calculating future loss of income.

Source reference: p. 4; p. 6

No precedent or other statutory provision is cited in the judgment.

Source reference: no citation
04

Reasoning

The Court accepted the Tribunal’s multiplier but substituted the 2023 notional income for the lower income used by the Tribunal.

Source reference: p. 4

Having regard to the claimant’s multiple fractures, his work as a mason, and the medical evidence of disability, the Court assessed functional disability at 25% rather than 18% and included 40% future prospects in the future-income calculation.

Source reference: pp. 5–6

It also increased compensation for pain and suffering, amenities, laid-up-period income and future medical expenses, and awarded compensation for loss of marriage prospects.

Source reference: pp. 5–7

It retained the awards for medical expenses and attendant, conveyance and nourishment charges.

Source reference: pp. 5–6
05

Holding

The appeal was allowed in part.

The Court enhanced the total compensation to ₹18,79,408, making the enhancement ₹9,23,110 over the Tribunal’s award, with interest at 6% per annum from the petition date until realisation.

Source reference: pp. 7–8

The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced compensation within six weeks; 50% was to be released to the claimant and the remaining 50% placed in a three-year fixed deposit.

Source reference: pp. 8–9

The claimant was not entitled to interest on the enhanced future-medical-expense amount of ₹30,000.

Source reference: pp. 8–9
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

MR. SANDEEP J. B.vsSRI. KUNNA SIDDANAYAK

Karnataka High Court · September 28, 2026

Click to open original judgment

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

Click to open original judgment