Insurer liability established in connected claims applies to other victims of the same accident.

Six claimants injured when a bus carrying them toppled and struck a parked KSRTC bus on 2 March 2012 sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal found the accident resulted from the bus driver’s rash and negligent driving, but discharged the insurer on the ground of a route-permit violation.

It awarded each claimant between ₹56,460 and ₹1,16,400.

The claimants appealed, challenging both the insurer’s discharge and the adequacy of compensation; they did not challenge the Tribunal’s assessment of loss of earning capacity at 7%.

Whether the insurer was liable to pay compensation and the Tribunal erred in discharging it.

Whether the claimants were entitled to enhanced compensation.

The claims were brought under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the appeals under Section 173(1) of that Act.

The Court applied the multiplier method to calculate future loss of income, using the claimants’ monthly income, the undisputed 7% loss of earning capacity, and the applicable age-based multiplier.

In assessing income, it held that ₹7,000 per month was the appropriate notional income for 2012 where the claimants had not substantiated their asserted earnings.

On insurer liability, it followed this Court’s decision in MFA No. 5456/2017 and connected appeals, which had upheld the insurer’s liability in claims arising from the same accident.

The Court treated the insurer-liability issue as governed by the prior decision concerning the same accident and held that its determination applied to these claimants as well.

On quantum, the claimants’ asserted monthly earnings were unsupported by specific evidence, but the Tribunal’s ₹4,500 income assessment was below the ₹7,000 notional income applicable for 2012.

The Court recalculated future loss using that income, the unchallenged 7% earning-capacity loss, and the applicable multipliers.

It also found the awards for pain and suffering and loss of amenities inadequate, increased them, and awarded ₹21,000 each for three months’ loss of income during recovery; it left the ₹5,000 award for medical and incidental expenses undisturbed.

It held the insurer liable and modified the awards to ₹1,22,160 for Jayanna, ₹1,80,960 for Shivashankar, ₹1,33,920 for Basavarajappa, ₹1,75,080 for Somashekar, and ₹1,63,320 each for Ningappa and Narayanappa.

The awards carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim petitions until deposit, excluding the respective appeal-delay periods.

The insurer was directed to deposit the sums within six weeks, after which the Tribunal was to release them with interest to the claimants.