Injury compensation must reflect functional disability and the applicable Karnataka notional-income guideline.

The appellant, a cleaner travelling in a goods lorry, was injured in a collision with another lorry on 6 November 2020.

He sustained fractures, including fractures of the radius and ulna of his right forearm, and was treated as an inpatient from 6 to 12 November 2020.

The Tribunal awarded him ₹3,84,950 with interest at 9% per annum.

He appealed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement, including on the grounds that his income and disability had been assessed too low.

1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was inadequate and required modification.

2. What order should follow from the Court’s determination of the appeal.

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

In assessing compensation, the Court applied the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority’s 2020 notional-income chart because the appellant had produced no documentary proof of income.

The Court assessed functional disability by reference to the medical evidence and treatment records, and calculated future loss of earning capacity using the assessed monthly income, disability percentage, and multiplier applicable to the appellant’s age.

The Court found that the Tribunal had assessed monthly income at ₹14,750 without basis and substituted the chart-based figure of ₹13,750.

Although the doctor assessed disability at 45% across the right forearm and spine, the Court considered the medical records and treatment and assessed functional disability at 15% to the whole body.

Applying the multiplier of 16 for the appellant’s age of 33, it calculated future loss of earning capacity at ₹3,96,000.

The Court also found three months’ recovery time reasonable, increasing laid-up-period loss to ₹41,000, and enhanced pain and suffering and loss of amenities to ₹40,000 each; it added ₹10,000 for food, nourishment, and attendant charges.

It left medical expenses of ₹47,000 undisturbed.

The objection concerning the non-impleadment of the owner and insurer of the other lorry was rejected because it had been raised orally for the first time on appeal, and the police had filed a charge sheet against the driver of the lorry insured by respondent No. 2.

The enhanced compensation was directed to carry interest at 6% per annum from the petition date until payment, and respondent No. 2 was directed to deposit the enhanced amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within eight weeks of receiving the certified judgment.

The Tribunal was directed to draw a modified award.