01Facts
The claimant appealed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement of compensation awarded under Section 166 in MVC No. 1399/2018.
pp. 2–5The accident and NWKRTC’s liability were not disputed.
pp. 2–5The Tribunal awarded ₹57,746, principally for medical expenses, pain and suffering, travel, nourishment, and inpatient expenses.
pp. 2–5The claimant relied on a disability certificate stating 25% disability of the left upper limb and 15% to the whole body; the doctor who issued it testified as PW2.
pp. 2–502Issues
i.1. Whether the disability certificate and medical evidence justified awarding compensation for loss of future earning capacity, and, if so, what functional disability should be assessed
pp. 3–5ii.2. Whether the Tribunal’s awards under the other heads, including interest, required enhancement
pp. 3, 5–603Law Applied
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides the basis for a claim for compensation arising from a motor-vehicle accident, while Section 173(1) permits an appeal against the Tribunal’s award
p. 2, 1Under Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, 2011 (1) SCC 343, a medical assessment of physical disability must be considered in determining compensation, but the court must separately assess the claimant’s functional disability and its effect on earning capacity
p. 4The Court also relied on Puttamma v. K.L. Narayana Reddy, (2013) 15 SCC 45, and United India Insurance Company Limited v. Sri Malyadri M, MFA No. 3895/2018, in fixing the rate of interest
p. 6Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173Section 166
04Reasoning
Although the Tribunal had declined to rely on the disability certificate because PW2 was not the treating doctor, the High Court accepted it because PW2 testified and corroborated its contents.
pp. 4–5Applying Raj Kumar, the Court distinguished the certificate’s medical disability assessment from the claimant’s functional disability: having regard to the left humerus fracture, surgery, and physical demands of agricultural work, it assessed functional disability at 8%.
pp. 4–5As the claimant had not proved his asserted occupation or income, the Court used the KSLSA chart to fix monthly income at ₹11,750 and applied the multiplier of 14 for his age of 42.
p. 4It also enhanced certain non-pecuniary and incidental awards, allowed for future medical expenses for removal of the fixation hardware, and fixed interest at 9% per annum.
pp. 5–605Holding
The appeal was partly allowed, and the Tribunal’s award was modified.
p. 7The claimant was awarded total compensation of ₹2,84,916, with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition until realization.
p. 7NWKRTC was directed to deposit the compensation and accrued interest before the Tribunal within eight weeks of receiving a certified copy of the judgment.
p. 7Original Court PDF
SRI.MURIGEPPA S/O GADIGEPPA DODDAMANIvsTHE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
