Karnataka HC Raises Compensation To ₹51.67 Lakh For Farmer With Above-Knee Amputation; Crane Owner Liable After Driver Had No Licence

In brief

The question

1. Whether the claimant’s functional disability and resulting loss of future income should be assessed above the 40% adopted by the Tribunal

The court held

Both appeals were allowed in part.

It also directed

The claimant’s total compensation was enhanced to Rs.51,67,151, an increase of Rs.13,94,640, with interest at 6% per annum from the petition date to realisation, except that no interest was payable on the enhanced amount for the artificial limb and its maintenance.

The crane’s owner was directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest before the Tribunal within six weeks.

The enhanced amount was ordered to remain in fixed deposit for 15 years, with Rs.5,00,000 to be released to the claimant every five years.

01Facts

Prakash was injured in a road accident on 29 December 2022 involving a crane owned by Khilari Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. He sustained an above-knee amputation of his right leg.

pp. 4–5

The MACT awarded him Rs.37,72,511 with interest at 6% per annum, assessed his functional disability at 40%, and held the crane’s owner liable because its driver did not hold a driving licence.

pp. 4–5

The owner appealed against liability and quantum; Prakash appealed seeking enhanced compensation.

pp. 5–8

02Issues

i.1. Whether the claimant’s functional disability and resulting loss of future income should be assessed above the 40% adopted by the Tribunal

pp. 10–11

ii.2. Whether the compensation awarded under the various heads, including for an artificial limb and its maintenance, required enhancement or reduction

pp. 9–12

iii.3. Whether the owner was liable for the award where the crane’s driver was found to be unlicensed

pp. 12–13

03Law Applied

Under Sections 3 and 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, driving a motor vehicle without a valid licence is an offence; the Court relied on the charge sheet and investigation evidence concerning those provisions in determining liability.

pp. 12–13

In assessing compensation for permanent disability, the Court considered the claimant’s occupation and the functional impact of the injury, drawing on M. Paramesh v. VRL Logistics Limited and Doddaiah v. ICICI Lombard Motor Insurance Co. Ltd. concerning functional disability following leg amputation.

p. 10

It applied a multiplier of 13 for the claimant, aged 50, and added 10% future prospects to the loss-of-income calculation.

pp. 9–11

Provisions in the judgment · 4 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173 Section 181 Section 7 Section 3

04Reasoning

The Court assessed the claimant’s functional disability at 80%, rather than the Tribunal’s 40%, taking account of his above-knee amputation and his work in agriculture and milk vending; it reasoned that he could continue milk vending with an artificial limb, and therefore did not adopt 100% disability.

p. 10

Using monthly income of Rs.15,500, multiplier 13, 80% disability and 10% future prospects, it assessed future income loss at Rs.21,27,840.

pp. 9–11

It increased compensation for an artificial limb and maintenance from Rs.5,00,000 to Rs.8,00,000, based on the claimant’s age, an estimated need for four limbs over his lifetime, and the cost and maintenance of each.

p. 11

It otherwise upheld the Tribunal’s pain-and-suffering, amenities, medical-expense and laid-up-period awards, but reduced attendant, conveyance, food and nourishment expenses to Rs.34,000 for 34 days of hospitalisation.

pp. 9–11

On liability, the charge sheet, the investigating officer’s evidence and the owner’s failure to produce the driver’s licence supported the finding that the driver was unlicensed; the Court accordingly maintained liability against the owner.

pp. 12–13