Karnataka High Court
Civil LawInsurance Law

Future prospects are not added in injury claims absent the highest degree of disability.

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER vs RAMESHA M

Karnataka High CourtJUDGMENT: September 25, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Future prospects are not added in injury claims absent the highest degree of disability.. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER vs RAMESHA M. Karnataka High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The claimant sought compensation for injuries sustained in a road accident on 29 July 2020 involving a motorcycle and a car.

Source reference: p. 3

The Tribunal awarded him ₹4,10,000, including ₹2,92,320 for loss of future earning capacity, and interest at 9% per annum.

Source reference: p. 3–6

The insurer appealed, challenging the assessment of disability and future prospects, as well as the interest rate.

Source reference: p. 3–6

The claimant was served but remained unrepresented in the appeal.

Source reference: p. 3–6

The High Court accepted the Tribunal’s assessment of 8% whole-body disability and monthly income of ₹14,500, but found the addition of 40% future prospects improper.

Source reference: p. 7
02

Issues

1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in adding 40% future prospects when calculating the claimant’s loss of future earning capacity.

Source reference: p. 6–8

2. Whether the Tribunal’s award of interest at 9% per annum should be reduced.

Source reference: p. 9
03

Law Applied

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

Source reference: p. 3

In assessing injury compensation, the Court held that future prospects should not be added in every injury case, but only in cases of death and injuries involving the highest disability.

Source reference: p. 7

The Court also stated that interest should generally reflect the bank rate and considered 6% per annum appropriate in this case.

Source reference: p. 9

No precedent was cited.

Source reference: no citation
04

Reasoning

The Court upheld the Tribunal’s finding of 8% whole-body disability, based on the doctor’s evidence that one-third of the assessed disability was attributable to the whole body, and accepted the monthly income of ₹14,500.

Source reference: p. 7

However, because the claimant’s injuries did not fall within the categories for which the Court considered future prospects appropriate, it removed the 40% addition and recalculated loss of future earning capacity at ₹2,08,800, using the multiplier of 15 and 8% disability.

Source reference: p. 7–8

It found the amounts under the other heads just and reasonable.

Source reference: p. 8

The Court reduced the interest rate from 9% to 6% per annum, referring to the general bank-rate approach.

Source reference: p. 9
05

Holding

The appeal was allowed in part.

The compensation was reduced from ₹4,10,000 to ₹3,26,378, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition until realization.

Source reference: p. 9–10

The insurer was directed to deposit the compensation with accrued interest within eight weeks of receiving the certified copy; disbursement and deposit were left to the Tribunal’s order.

Source reference: p. 9–10

No order as to costs.

Source reference: p. 9–10
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

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGERvsRAMESHA M

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