Karnataka HC Raises Compensation To ₹18.05 Lakh For Woman With Below-Knee Amputation In Tractor Crash

On 8 February 2015, the claimant was struck by a tractor-trailer while walking beside a road and sustained injuries resulting in amputation of her right leg below the knee.

She brought a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the vehicle’s owner and insurer.

The Tribunal found the driver negligent and awarded ₹9,16,100, holding the insurer liable.

The claimant appealed for enhanced compensation; the insurer appealed on liability, the claimant’s age and the amount of compensation and interest.

Under Sections 166 and 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a claimant may seek compensation for an accident and appeal the Tribunal’s award.

In Nagashetty v. United India Insurance Company Limited, (2001) 8 SCC 56, the Supreme Court held that an insurer cannot avoid liability merely because a trailer is attached to a tractor where the driver holds a licence to drive the tractor.

Erudhaya Priya v. State Express Transport Corporation Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine SC 601, establishes that future prospects are to be added when assessing loss of income in a personal-injury claim.

As explained in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343, assessment of functional disability and compensation must account for the effect of the injury on the claimant’s earning capacity and circumstances.

The Court rejected the insurer’s liability challenge: the evidence showed that the driver was licensed to drive the tractor, and the claimant was injured by the tractor engine; in any event, attachment of the trailer alone did not permit the insurer to avoid liability under Nagashetty.

For quantum, the Court adopted the 2015 notional monthly income of ₹9,000, accepted age 40 and applied 40% future prospects.

It upheld the Tribunal’s 60% functional-disability assessment, reasoning that the claimant’s 70% physical disability did not automatically establish an equivalent loss of earning capacity, particularly given her use of an artificial limb and the absence of evidence that she could not undertake other work.

It recalculated future loss of income using a multiplier of 15 and enhanced compensation for pain and suffering, the artificial limb and related needs, and the three-month laid-up period; it otherwise maintained the awards for diet and incidental expenses and medical expenses.

The claimant’s appeal was allowed in part, and total compensation was enhanced from ₹9,16,100 to ₹18,05,900, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition until realization.

The insurer was directed to deposit the reassessed compensation with interest within six weeks; 25% was ordered released to the claimant, who could seek release of the balance by showing just cause.