Karnataka High CourtTransport, Maritime, and Aviation LawCivil Law

Karnataka HC Raises Injured Loader’s Compensation From Rs 2.44 Lakh To Rs 3.48 Lakh, Assessing 10% Whole-Body Disability

BABU @ IRSHAD PASHAv.ABOOBACKER

Karnataka HC Raises Injured Loader’s Compensation From Rs 2.44 Lakh To Rs 3.48 Lakh, Assessing 10% Whole-Body Disability. BABU @ IRSHAD PASHA vs ABOOBACKER. Karnataka High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of the appellant’s whole-body disability at 8% should be increased in light of his injuries and occupation as a loader.

The court held

The appeal was allowed in part. The Court enhanced the total compensation from Rs. 2,43,761 to Rs. 3,48,361, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition until realization.

It also directed

The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the amount within six weeks of receiving the certified copy, and the Tribunal was directed to release the entire amount to the claimant.

01Facts

The appellant, a loader, was injured on 1 January 2017 when a goods auto in which he was travelling was struck from behind by an Alto car and toppled into a sugarcane field.

p. 3 · ¶ 2

He filed a claim petition, and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Maddur, awarded compensation of Rs. 2,43,761.

pp. 3–4 · ¶ 2, 5

The appellant appealed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement; the Tribunal had assessed his whole-body disability at 8% and monthly income at Rs. 11,000.

p. 2, 4 · ¶ 5

02Issues

i.Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of the appellant’s whole-body disability at 8% should be increased in light of his injuries and occupation as a loader.

p. 4 · ¶ 5

ii.Whether compensation for pain and suffering and loss of amenities should be enhanced.

p. 5 · ¶ 5

03Law Applied

The appeal was brought under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which provides for an appeal against an award of a Claims Tribunal.

p. 2

In assessing compensation, the Court applied the multiplier method to the claimant’s monthly income, age-related multiplier and percentage of whole-body disability; it also considered compensation under conventional heads, including pain and suffering and loss of amenities.

p. 5 · ¶ 5

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

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173

04Reasoning

The Court found the Tribunal’s 8% whole-body disability assessment inconsistent with the appellant’s injuries and occupation. Although the doctor assessed 24.6% disability to the left upper limb, the Court considered the appellant’s rib injury and his work as a coolie and assessed whole-body disability at 10%.

pp. 4–5 · ¶ 5

Applying the monthly income of Rs. 11,000 and multiplier of 15, it recalculated future income loss at Rs. 1,98,000. It also increased compensation for pain and suffering from Rs. 30,000 to Rs. 50,000 and loss of amenities from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 50,000, while leaving the other heads unchanged.

p. 5 · ¶ 5

05Holding

The appeal was allowed in part. The Court enhanced the total compensation from Rs. 2,43,761 to Rs. 3,48,361, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition until realization.

p. 6 · ¶ 6

The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the amount within six weeks of receiving the certified copy, and the Tribunal was directed to release the entire amount to the claimant.

p. 6 · ¶ 6
Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF

BABU @ IRSHAD PASHAvsABOOBACKER

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