Karnataka High CourtCivil LawCivil Procedure and Evidence

Karnataka HC Raises Compensation To ₹26.31 Lakh For Child Who Lost Left Hand In Lorry Crash

MADESHAv.B M PUTTARAJU

Karnataka HC Raises Compensation To ₹26.31 Lakh For Child Who Lost Left Hand In Lorry Crash. MADESHA vs B M PUTTARAJU. Karnataka High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

1. Whether the claimant was entitled to enhancement of compensation, including compensation for loss of future earning capacity arising from his amputation.

The court held

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

It also directed

It modified the award to grant total compensation of Rs. 26,31,897, compared with the Tribunal’s Rs. 18,35,000, with interest at 6% per annum from the petition date until realization, excluding the delayed period of 221 days.

The insurer was directed to deposit the compensation with accrued interest within eight weeks; disbursement and deposit were left to the Tribunal’s order.

01Facts

The claimant, a minor, was injured in a road accident on 17 April 2021 when a Tata Tipper lorry struck him while he was standing by the road after getting down from a mini truck.

pp. 3–4 · ¶ 3

He sustained severe injuries to his left hand, which was amputated; he was 10 years old at the time of the accident.

pp. 3–4, 8 · ¶ 3, 13

The Tribunal awarded him Rs. 18,35,000.

pp. 5–6 · ¶ 5–7

Dissatisfied with the award, the claimant appealed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking enhancement, including compensation for loss of future earning capacity.

pp. 2, 5–6 · ¶ 1, 5–7

02Issues

i.1. Whether the claimant was entitled to enhancement of compensation, including compensation for loss of future earning capacity arising from his amputation.

p. 6 · ¶ 9

03Law Applied

Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for an appeal against an award of the Claims Tribunal.

p. 2 · ¶ 1

Relying on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, the Court applied a multiplier of 15.

p. 8 · ¶ 13

Relying on Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Anr., 2025 INSC 1070, it assessed the minor claimant’s income by reference to the income of a skilled labourer and added future prospects.

p. 5, 8 · ¶ 7, 13

The Court also treated 60% as the appropriate disability figure for the left upper limb, referring to the Employees’ Compensation Act benchmark for amputation below the tip of the olecranon.

pp. 7–8 · ¶ 12

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

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173

04Reasoning

The Court accepted the doctor’s evidence that the claimant had 70% disability of the left upper limb but upheld the Tribunal’s assessment of 60%, applying the stated amputation benchmark.

pp. 7–8 · ¶ 11–12

Given the claimant’s age and permanent amputation, it assessed his income using the applicable skilled-worker minimum wage, added 40% future prospects, and applied the multiplier of 15 and 60% disability to calculate loss of future earning capacity at Rs. 20,91,897.

p. 8 · ¶ 13–14

It otherwise revised or retained the non-pecuniary awards, reducing amounts for pain and suffering, parents’ agony, marriage prospects and attendant charges, and disallowing a separate award for shock and deprivation already covered by loss of future amenities.

pp. 9–11 · ¶ 15–16

05Holding

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

pp. 11–12 · ¶ 18

It modified the award to grant total compensation of Rs. 26,31,897, compared with the Tribunal’s Rs. 18,35,000, with interest at 6% per annum from the petition date until realization, excluding the delayed period of 221 days.

pp. 11–12 · ¶ 18

The insurer was directed to deposit the compensation with accrued interest within eight weeks; disbursement and deposit were left to the Tribunal’s order.

pp. 11–12 · ¶ 18
Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF

MADESHAvsB M PUTTARAJU

Karnataka High Court · October 17, 2026

Click to open original judgment

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

Click to open original judgment