Karnataka HC Cuts Injured Worker’s Award To ₹3.25 Lakh, Citing Same Job And No Proof Of Lost Earnings

In brief

The question

Whether the claimant, who continued in the same employment, was entitled to compensation for loss of future earning capacity.

The court held

The appeal was partly allowed. The Tribunal’s award was modified: the claimant was awarded a total of ₹3,25,000, with loss of future earnings excluded and compensation reassessed under the other specified heads.

It also directed

Interest was fixed at 9% per annum from the date of the petition until realization, and the insurer was directed to deposit the compensation and accrued interest before the Tribunal within eight weeks of receiving a certified copy of the judgment.

01Facts

The claimant sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for injuries sustained in a motor-vehicle accident; the accident and injuries were undisputed

p. 2

He sustained a compound fracture of the right femur and a comminuted compound fracture of the right patella

p. 4

The doctor assessed whole-body disability at 40%, while the Tribunal fixed disability at 15% and awarded ₹3,87,000, including ₹1,62,000 for loss of future earnings and ₹40,000 for loss of income during the laid-up period

pp. 2–3

The insurer appealed, challenging the disability-based award and related heads of compensation.

The claimant sought higher compensation for pain and suffering and future medical expenses

p. 3

02Issues

i.Whether the claimant, who continued in the same employment, was entitled to compensation for loss of future earning capacity.

pp. 4–6

ii.Whether the awards for pain and suffering, loss of income during the laid-up period, and loss of amenities required reassessment in light of the injuries.

pp. 6–7

03Law Applied

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides the basis for a claim for compensation arising from a motor-vehicle accident, and Section 173(1) provides for an appeal against the Tribunal’s award.

p. 2, 1

The court applied the principle in Soni Sharma v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., that continued employment or the absence of premature retirement does not, by itself, determine whether an injured person has suffered a loss of earning capacity.

p. 4

It considered New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Manjula, where compensation for future income was not awarded in the circumstances, but compensation for loss of amenities was assessed by reference to the injuries and medical evidence; and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. D.C. Rajanna, concerning the need to assess evidence rather than award future-earning compensation mechanically.

pp. 5–6

The court also relied on Puttamma v. K.L. Narayana Reddy and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sri Malyadri M in fixing interest at 9% per annum.

p. 7

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

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173 Section 166

04Reasoning

Although the doctor assessed whole-body disability at 40%, the claimant produced no evidence that he had left service or was no longer working, and the available material showed that he continued in the same job.

p. 4, 6

The court therefore held that the evidence did not justify compensation for loss of future earnings, while recognising that continued employment did not negate the effects of disability on the claimant’s amenities.

pp. 4–6

Given the serious fractures and disability, it awarded ₹1,00,000 for loss of amenities and increased pain-and-suffering compensation from ₹50,000 to ₹75,000.

p. 7

It upheld ₹40,000 for loss of income during the laid-up period and ₹1,10,000 for medical and incidental expenses.

p. 7