Karnataka High CourtTransport, Maritime, and Aviation LawCivil Law

Karnataka HC Raises Injured Autorickshaw Driver’s Compensation To ₹47.11 Lakh, Calculating Future Income Loss On 100% Disability

SRI IMRANv.THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

Karnataka HC Raises Injured Autorickshaw Driver’s Compensation To ₹47.11 Lakh, Calculating Future Income Loss On 100% Disability. SRI IMRAN vs THE MANAGING DIRECTOR. Karnataka High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in fastening liability on KSRTC

The court held

The Court dismissed KSRTC’s appeal and partly allowed Imran’s appeal.

It also directed

It increased total compensation to ₹47,11,185, granting an enhancement of ₹15,53,000, with 6% annual interest from the date of the petition until realization.

KSRTC was directed to deposit the enhanced amount with interest within six weeks; 50% of the enhancement was to be released to Imran and the balance placed in a fixed deposit for three years

01Facts

Imran was injured in a road accident on 17 October 2023 while driving an autorickshaw, which collided with a KSRTC bus.

pp. 4–7, 9

The Tribunal found the bus driver negligent and awarded Imran ₹31,58,185 with 6% annual interest.

pp. 4–7, 9

Imran appealed seeking enhancement; KSRTC appealed against the finding of liability.

pp. 4–7, 9

KSRTC argued, among other things, that Imran lacked the required autorickshaw licence and had violated the permit.

pp. 4–7, 9

Imran relied on the charge sheet and accident sketch, and sought higher compensation based on his age, occupation and disability

pp. 4–7, 9

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in fastening liability on KSRTC

p. 8

ii.2. Whether there were grounds to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal

p. 8

03Law Applied

Under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, an appeal lies against a motor accident claims award

pp. 1–3

In assessing compensation for permanent disability, the Court applied the multiplier method and added 40% future prospects to the claimant’s assessed income; it used multiplier 15 for the claimant’s age of 36

pp. 9–10

The Court also held that the claimant’s permit violation did not affect KSRTC’s liability to compensate him as a third party

p. 9

The Court referred to Smt. Madevi Manjunath Moger v. Sri Manjunath Bheema Gonda, MFA No. 2606/2026, in support of the claimant’s request for higher income

p. 7

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 279Section 338

04Reasoning

The accident sketch showed that the bus crossed onto the side of the road on which the autorickshaw was travelling, while the charge sheet was filed against the bus driver.

p. 9

The Court therefore upheld the finding that the bus driver’s negligence caused the accident.

p. 9

It rejected KSRTC’s permit argument because the violation did not affect its liability to the injured third party.

p. 9

For compensation, the Court assessed monthly income at ₹18,000, applied multiplier 15 and added 40% future prospects, resulting in ₹45,36,000 for loss of future income due to disability.

pp. 9–11

It otherwise retained the awards for pain and suffering, loss of amenities and medical expenses, reduced attendant, conveyance, food and nourishment expenses to ₹13,000, and disallowed the separate award for loss of income during the laid-up period because disability was assessed at 100%.

pp. 9–11

05Holding

The Court dismissed KSRTC’s appeal and partly allowed Imran’s appeal.

pp. 11–13

It increased total compensation to ₹47,11,185, granting an enhancement of ₹15,53,000, with 6% annual interest from the date of the petition until realization.

pp. 11–13

KSRTC was directed to deposit the enhanced amount with interest within six weeks; 50% of the enhancement was to be released to Imran and the balance placed in a fixed deposit for three years

pp. 11–13
Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF

SRI IMRANvsTHE MANAGING DIRECTOR

Karnataka High Court · November 02, 2026

Click to open original judgment

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

Click to open original judgment