Karnataka HC Raises Injured Welder’s Compensation To ₹6.69 Lakh, Accepting His ₹18,000 Salary Certificate Without Its Author’s Testimony

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Tribunal should have assessed the claimant’s monthly income at ₹18,000 based on the employer’s salary certificate, although its author was not examined.

The court held

The appeal was allowed in part.

It also directed

The Court assessed total compensation at ₹6,69,003, enhancing the award by ₹2,27,180, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition until realisation.

The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced amount with interest within six weeks, and the claimant was permitted to withdraw the entire enhanced compensation.

01Facts

Ananda appealed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement of compensation for injuries sustained in a road accident on 22 December 2021.

pp. 2–4, paras 1, 3–4

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded him ₹4,41,823, including compensation for pain and suffering, disability-related loss of future income, medical expenses, and loss of amenities.

pp. 2–4, paras 1, 3–4

The High Court considered his evidence of monthly earnings as a welder, medical evidence of disability, the nature of his injuries, and the period of hospitalisation and recovery.

pp. 4–8, paras 6–9

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Tribunal should have assessed the claimant’s monthly income at ₹18,000 based on the employer’s salary certificate, although its author was not examined.

p. 5, para 7

ii.2. Whether the Tribunal correctly assessed whole-body disability and the resulting loss of future income.

pp. 5–6, paras 7–8

iii.3. Whether the compensation awarded under pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and loss of income during the laid-up period required enhancement.

pp. 7–8, para 9

03Law Applied

Under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, an aggrieved party may appeal an award of the Claims Tribunal.

p. 2

In assessing motor-accident compensation, loss of future income may be calculated by applying the appropriate multiplier to annual income and the claimant’s whole-body disability; the Court applied the multiplier of 13, having regard to the claimant’s age.

pp. 4–6, paras 6, 8

The Court relied on Rajwati @ Rajjo v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1699, for the principle that a salary certificate may be considered even where its author has not been examined.

p. 5, para 7

For translating limb disability into whole-body disability, the Court applied one-fourth of upper-limb disability and one-third of lower-limb disability.

p. 5, para 8

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

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173

04Reasoning

The Court accepted the salary certificate as evidence of monthly income of ₹18,000, applying Rajwati despite the non-examination of its author.

p. 5, para 7

It calculated whole-body disability as 9.75%—2.75% attributable to the upper limb and 7% to the lower limb—and, using the multiplier of 13, assessed future income loss at ₹2,73,780.

pp. 4–6, paras 6, 8

Given the claimant’s two fractures and other injuries, it increased pain-and-suffering compensation to ₹1,00,000 and loss-of-amenities compensation to ₹80,000.

pp. 6–8, para 9

It also calculated three months’ laid-up income at ₹54,000, while upholding the Tribunal’s awards for medical expenses and incidental charges.

pp. 6–8, para 9

05Holding

The appeal was allowed in part.

pp. 8–10, paras 10–11

The Court assessed total compensation at ₹6,69,003, enhancing the award by ₹2,27,180, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition until realisation.

pp. 8–10, paras 10–11

The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced amount with interest within six weeks, and the claimant was permitted to withdraw the entire enhanced compensation.

pp. 8–10, paras 10–11

LawLens.Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF