Karnataka HC Raises Brain-Injured Woman Labourer’s Compensation To Rs 14.09 Lakh, Assessing 30% Whole-Body Disability

The appellant was injured while travelling as a pillion rider in a motorcycle that was struck by the offending vehicle on 9 October 2018.

She filed MVC No. 329/2019, alleging serious head injuries and resulting physical and neurological impairments.

The Tribunal awarded ₹5,99,500 with interest at 6% per annum, assessed her whole-body disability at 15%, and directed the insurer to satisfy the award.

On appeal, she sought enhancement, particularly in relation to disability, income, and compensation for pain and suffering.

The doctor who examined her for disability assessed whole-body disability at 37%; the Tribunal had reduced that assessment because he was not her treating doctor.

Under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, an aggrieved party may appeal against a Tribunal’s award.

In assessing loss of future income, National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, provides for an addition of 40% of established income towards future prospects for a self-employed person below 40 years of age.

Disability compensation is assessed by considering the claimant’s functional impairment in light of the medical evidence and the demands of the claimant’s occupation; a doctor’s disability assessment is not to be rejected solely because the doctor did not treat the claimant.

The compensation must reflect the injuries’ proved impact and the claimant’s resulting losses, as assessed on the evidence on record.

The Court considered the MRI findings and the doctor’s clinical observations, including reduced power in the appellant’s right limbs, an abnormal gait, giddiness, and slowness in understanding routine commands.

It accepted the doctor’s 37% assessment as credible, notwithstanding that he was not the treating doctor, but assessed whole-body disability at 30% after considering the appellant’s work as a coolie and her household responsibilities.

It enhanced compensation for pain and suffering, nourishment and attendant charges, conveyance, laid-up-period income, and future amenities, while leaving medical expenses unchanged for want of proof of additional expenditure.

Applying Pranay Sethi, it added 40% future prospects to the assessed monthly income and calculated future-income loss using the 30% disability assessment.

The Court did not grant the requested 9% interest and retained the Tribunal’s 6% rate.

The Court enhanced the total compensation to ₹14,09,310, an increase of ₹8,09,810 over the Tribunal’s award, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition until realisation.

The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced amount within six weeks of receiving the certified copy; deposit and release were to be governed by the Tribunal’s order.