Karnataka HC Raises Injured 12-Year-Old’s Compensation To Rs 11.85 Lakh, Uses Skilled-Wage Benchmark To Calculate Future Loss

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of Abhishek’s permanent disability and compensation for its effect on his future earning capacity required modification.

The court held

Abhishek’s appeal was allowed in part and the insurer’s appeal was dismissed.

It also directed

The award was modified to ₹11,85,300, including an enhancement of ₹6,76,300, with interest at 6% per annum from the claim petition date, subject to exclusion of the 408-day delay period in filing the appeal.

The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced compensation within six weeks, with liberty to recover the amount from the vehicle owner; deposit and release were left to the Tribunal’s directions.

01Facts

Abhishek, then about 12 years old, was injured when a tanker collided with the car in which he was travelling on 2 May 2015.

pp. 5–6, 21–24, 42

He sustained, among other injuries, a fracture of the left femur and head injuries, and was hospitalised for 14 days.

pp. 5–6, 21–24, 42

The Tribunal awarded him ₹5,09,000 with 6% interest and directed the insurer to satisfy the award.

p. 9

Abhishek appealed, seeking enhancement, while United India Insurance Company appealed against its liability and challenged the compensation, including the medical expenses claimed.

pp. 10–14

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of Abhishek’s permanent disability and compensation for its effect on his future earning capacity required modification.

pp. 17–20, 34–36

ii.2. Whether compensation for a minor injured claimant should be assessed using skilled-worker minimum wages, with future prospects and an appropriate multiplier.

pp. 36–42

iii.3. Whether the insurer could be directed to satisfy the award, with liberty to recover from the vehicle owner, in light of the asserted discrepancies in vehicle particulars.

pp. 12–17

iv.4. Whether the insurer established that medical expenses had been claimed twice and should be deducted.

pp. 14–15, 43–44

03Law Applied

Under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the High Court considered the cross-appeals against the Tribunal’s award.

pp. 1–3

Applying Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari, the Court treated the minimum wages payable to a skilled workman as the appropriate benchmark for assessing a minor’s income where compensation for permanent disability is claimed.

pp. 36–38

It relied on Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. v. E.C. Asha to adopt the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority’s notional income chart as a proxy for skilled-worker minimum wages.

pp. 38–39

The Court applied the principles in Pappu, Sidram and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi to add 40% towards future prospects, and Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar to hold that personal and living expenses are not deducted in an injured claimant’s case.

pp. 39–41

It applied the multiplier of 18 for a child below 15 years, as stated in the judgment.

p. 39

On liability, it followed the Division Bench’s earlier connected-appeal direction requiring the insurer to pay and permitting recovery from the owner.

pp. 15–17

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

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173

04Reasoning

The Court considered the doctor’s 47% whole-body disability assessment but noted that no orthopaedic surgeon had testified about the claimant’s lower-limb disability.

pp. 24–36

Having regard to the clinical findings, imaging, residual difficulties and absence of that specialist evidence, it assessed whole-body disability at 35%.

pp. 24–36

It assessed monthly income at ₹8,000 for 2015, added 40% future prospects to reach ₹11,200, applied multiplier 18, and calculated loss of future income at 35% of ₹24,19,200, or ₹8,46,720.

pp. 38–42

It also awarded amounts for pain and suffering, loss of amenities, transport, nourishment and attendant/incidental expenses.

p. 43

The Court rejected the insurer’s proposed deduction for allegedly duplicated medical bills, finding no sufficient basis to disturb the Tribunal’s consideration of the records.

pp. 43–44

It declined a separate reassessment of the vehicle-number discrepancies because the insurer’s pay-and-recover liability had already been addressed in the connected appeals.

pp. 15–17