Karnataka High CourtTransport, Maritime, and Aviation LawCivil Law

Karnataka HC Raises Compensation For Bus Passenger With Fractured Kneecap To ₹5.76 Lakh

SRI. UMESH SANGAPPA MAGUNDANAVARv.THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER

Karnataka HC Raises Compensation For Bus Passenger With Fractured Kneecap To ₹5.76 Lakh. SRI. UMESH SANGAPPA MAGUNDANAVAR vs THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER. Karnataka High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was inadequate and liable to be enhanced

The court held

The Court answered the first issue partly in the affirmative and allowed the appeal in part.

It also directed

It enhanced total compensation from ₹4,63,900 to ₹5,76,000.

The enhanced amount carries interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition until payment, excluding the 323-day delay in filing the appeal.

The respondent Corporation was directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with accrued interest within six weeks of receiving the certified judgment, and the Tribunal was directed to draw a modified award.

01Facts

The appellant was injured in a bus accident on 24 July 2020 while travelling as a passenger in a NWKRTC bus.

pp. 2, 6–7

He sustained a comminuted fracture of the left patella and underwent surgery; he claimed that his injuries reduced his earning capacity as an electrician.

pp. 2, 6–7

The Tribunal awarded him ₹4,63,900, including compensation for 15% whole-body disability, but assessed his monthly income at ₹12,000 and awarded ₹3,300 for loss of income during the laid-up period.

p. 4

The claimant appealed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement.

p. 1

02Issues

i.1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was inadequate and liable to be enhanced

p. 5 · ¶ 11

ii.2. What order should be made in the appeal

p. 5 · ¶ 11

03Law Applied

The appeal was brought under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which provides for an appeal against a motor accident claims award.

p. 1

In assessing the claimant’s income, the Court applied the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority’s income chart where the claimant had produced no documentary proof of earnings.

p. 7 · ¶ 14

The Court assessed loss of future income using the claimant’s monthly income, the applicable multiplier, and the percentage of disability affecting earning capacity.

p. 7 · ¶ 15

No judicial precedent was cited.

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173

04Reasoning

The Court found no basis to interfere with the Tribunal’s assessment of 15% whole-body disability, notwithstanding the doctor’s assessment of 25% disability to the left lower leg.

pp. 6–7 · ¶ 13

As the claimant had not proved his asserted income of ₹30,000 per month, the Court used the applicable chart and fixed his monthly income at ₹13,750; applying the multiplier of 16 and 15% disability, it recalculated future income loss at ₹3,96,000.

p. 7 · ¶ 14–15

Given the fracture and inpatient treatment, it increased pain-and-suffering compensation to ₹25,000, assessed three months’ loss of income at ₹30,000, and awarded ₹20,000 for loss of amenities; it left the other awarded heads unchanged.

pp. 8–9 · ¶ 16–19

05Holding

The Court answered the first issue partly in the affirmative and allowed the appeal in part.

pp. 9–10 · ¶ 20–22

It enhanced total compensation from ₹4,63,900 to ₹5,76,000.

pp. 9–10 · ¶ 20–22

The enhanced amount carries interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition until payment, excluding the 323-day delay in filing the appeal.

p. 10 · ¶ 22

The respondent Corporation was directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with accrued interest within six weeks of receiving the certified judgment, and the Tribunal was directed to draw a modified award.

p. 10 · ¶ 22
Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF

SRI. UMESH SANGAPPA MAGUNDANAVARvsTHE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER

Karnataka High Court · October 30, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment