Karnataka HC Raises Injured Scooter Rider’s Compensation By ₹77,500, Including Three Months’ Lost Income

In brief

The question

1. Whether the claimant was entitled to compensation for loss of future income on account of permanent disability.

The court held

The Court dismissed Farooq’s appeal for non-prosecution.

It also directed

The Court allowed Neelamma’s cross-objection in part.

It enhanced the total compensation to ₹2,58,593, an increase of ₹77,500, with interest at 6% per annum from the petition date, except that the enhanced amount would carry no interest for the 1,070-day delay in filing the cross-objection.

The respondent was directed to deposit the enhanced amount within six weeks, and the Tribunal was directed to release the entire amount to the claimant.

01Facts

On 8 July 2018, Neelamma T. was injured when a car driven by Farooq Ahmed Khan struck her scooter from behind.

p. 4 · ¶ 5

She sustained a fracture of the left clavicle, fractures of the seventh and eighth ribs, and other injuries; she underwent treatment and claimed compensation.

p. 4 · ¶ 5

The Tribunal awarded her ₹1,81,093 with interest at 6% per annum.

p. 5 · ¶ 4

Farooq appealed against the award, but his appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution after he failed to appear.

p. 3 · ¶ 1–3

Neelamma filed a cross-objection seeking enhanced compensation.

p. 2

02Issues

i.1. Whether the claimant was entitled to compensation for loss of future income on account of permanent disability.

p. 5 · ¶ 9

ii.2. Whether the claimant was entitled to additional compensation for loss of income during the laid-up period and under other conventional heads.

pp. 6–7 · ¶ 10–12

03Law Applied

The appeal was brought under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the cross-objection under Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

pp. 1–2

The Court applied the principles of assessing motor-accident compensation by reference to the evidence of injury and disability, and by awarding notional income for a supported period of incapacity.

The judgment cited no precedents or further statutory provisions.

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

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173

04Reasoning

The Court accepted the Tribunal’s finding that the claimant’s clavicle and rib fractures did not establish permanent disability warranting compensation for loss of future income.

p. 5 · ¶ 9

However, because the claimant had taken three months’ bed rest, the Court assessed loss of income for that period using the 2018 notional monthly income of ₹12,500, awarding ₹37,500.

p. 6 · ¶ 10

It also increased compensation for special diet and conveyance from ₹10,000 to ₹20,000 and awarded ₹30,000 for loss of amenities.

p. 6 · ¶ 11

The awards for pain and suffering and medical expenses remained unchanged.

p. 6 · ¶ 11

05Holding

The Court dismissed Farooq’s appeal for non-prosecution.

p. 3 · ¶ 3

The Court allowed Neelamma’s cross-objection in part.

p. 7 · ¶ 12(i)

pp. 7–8 · ¶ 12(ii)–(iii)

The respondent was directed to deposit the enhanced amount within six weeks, and the Tribunal was directed to release the entire amount to the claimant.

p. 8 · ¶ 12(iv)–(v)

LawLens.Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF