Karnataka HC Cuts Injured Woman’s Compensation From ₹2.38 Lakh To ₹1.36 Lakh, Finding Permanent Disability Unproved

In brief

The question

Whether the claimant proved accident-related permanent disability sufficient to support compensation for loss of future earning capacity and loss of amenities.

The court held

The Court partly allowed the Corporation’s appeal and dismissed the claimant’s cross-objection.

It also directed

It reduced compensation from ₹2,38,185 to ₹1,36,052, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition until realization, and directed the Corporation to deposit the amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within eight weeks of receiving the judgment.

01Facts

The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident on 5 December 2015 and sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

pp. 4–5

The Tribunal awarded her ₹2,38,185, including compensation for loss of future earning capacity and amenities, and held the Corporation liable.

pp. 4–5

The Corporation appealed, challenging the proof of disability and the related awards; the claimant filed a cross-objection seeking enhancement.

pp. 5–7

02Issues

i.Whether the claimant proved accident-related permanent disability sufficient to support compensation for loss of future earning capacity and loss of amenities.

pp. 8–11

ii.Whether the Tribunal’s award should be varied, including the compensation for treatment-related loss of income and expenses.

pp. 5–7, 11–12

03Law Applied

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides the basis for a claim for compensation arising from a motor-vehicle accident; Section 173(1) provides for an appeal against an award of the Claims Tribunal, while Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits a respondent to file a cross-objection.

pp. 2–3

The Court referred to Rajkumar v. Ajaykumar, 2011 (1) SCC 343, concerning the practical difficulty injured claimants may face in securing evidence from treating doctors and the consequent use of disability certificates from other medical practitioners.

p. 9

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173 Section 166

04Reasoning

The Court found that the disability certificate, Ex. P44, was issued by a doctor who had assessed the claimant as an outpatient and did not specify the dates of treatment; it was issued about two years after the accident.

p. 8

The hospital record, Ex. P8, noted shoulder pain and restricted movement following an earlier road accident, but the recommended surgery was not substantiated by further records.

pp. 9–10

The Court therefore held that permanent disability had not been established and disallowed compensation for future earnings, transportation, nourishment and attendant charges, and loss of amenities.

p. 11

However, it relied on the treatment records and the stated treatment period to allow compensation for laid-up-period income, medical expenses, miscellaneous expenses, and pain and suffering.

pp. 10–12

The salary certificate stated that the claimant continued to earn ₹8,500 per month, which the Court treated as her monthly income.

p. 11