Injured Driver’s Compensation Raised To Rs 4.98 Lakh; Karnataka HC Keeps 20% Contributory Negligence Cut

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of the claimant’s income and whole-body disability, and its resulting calculation of compensation for loss of future earning capacity, required modification.

The court held

The appeal was allowed in part. The Court recalculated the total compensation at ₹6,22,218 before apportionment and, after applying the claimant’s 80% share, rounded his entitlement to ₹4,98,000.

It also directed

It modified the Tribunal’s award accordingly, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition until realisation, excluding the 188-day delay in filing the appeal; the insurer was directed to deposit the amount within six weeks, and the full amount was to be released to the claimant upon identification.

01Facts

The claimant appealed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the MACT’s award in MVC No. 532/2017, seeking enhancement of compensation and challenging the assessment of disability and the finding of contributory negligence.

pp. 2–4

He claimed that a car struck him while he was standing near Huskur Gate to cross the road, causing multiple injuries, including fractures; the Tribunal had assessed his monthly income at ₹8,000, fixed 20% contributory negligence against him, and awarded ₹3,45,018.

pp. 3–4, 8

The judgment contains inconsistent accident dates: paragraph 3 records 18 December 2026, while paragraph 9 states 18 December 2016.

p. 2, 5

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of the claimant’s income and whole-body disability, and its resulting calculation of compensation for loss of future earning capacity, required modification.

pp. 4–7

ii.2. Whether the compensation under other heads required enhancement.

pp. 7–8

iii.3. Whether the Tribunal’s finding that the claimant was 20% contributorily negligent should be disturbed.

p. 8

03Law Applied

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

p. 2

In reassessing compensation, the Court used the claimant’s income, disability affecting earning capacity, and multiplier to calculate loss of future income; it referred to the KSLSA’s 2016 notional-income figure of ₹9,500 per month, but fixed income at ₹10,000 per month in view of the claimant’s occupation as a driver.

pp. 5–7

The Court also assessed compensation under the heads of pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and treatment-related expenses, and applied the Tribunal’s 80:20 apportionment for contributory negligence.

pp. 7–8

No precedent was cited.

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173

04Reasoning

The Court found that the Tribunal’s monthly-income assessment of ₹8,000 was inadequate and fixed it at ₹10,000, taking account of the claimant’s work as a driver.

pp. 5–6

Although the medical expert assessed whole-body disability at 16%, the Court considered the restriction in the claimant’s right-shoulder movement and the effect on his driving occupation and assessed whole-body disability at 20%; applying a multiplier of 13, it recalculated loss of future income at ₹3,12,000.

pp. 6–7

Given the injuries and ten-day hospitalisation, it increased compensation for pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and treatment-related expenses, while leaving medical expenses and future medical expenses unchanged.

pp. 7–8

It upheld the 20% contributory-negligence finding because the police record showed that the claimant was standing on the tar road.

p. 8