Loss of income during treatment must reflect proven earnings from all employment sources and allowances.

The claimant, a doctor employed at Sapthagiri Hospital, sustained injuries in a road accident on 27 December 2022 involving a KSRTC bus.

The MACT partly allowed her claim and awarded ₹6,11,300, including compensation for pain and suffering, medical expenses, laid-up-period income loss and vehicle damage

On appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, she sought enhancement, contending that the Tribunal had undervalued her income and certain heads of compensation

1. Whether the claimant’s income from Sapthagiri Hospital and Suguna Hospital should be included in calculating loss of income during the 195-day laid-up period

2. Whether compensation for pain and suffering, loss of amenities and vehicle damage required enhancement, and whether the claimant was entitled to future prospects for disability

Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for an appeal against an award of the Claims Tribunal.

Compensation must be assessed on the evidence of the claimant’s income, period of incapacity and injuries.

In M.R. Narahari Pandit v. Veenadevi Jalan, the Court held that deduction from the actual cost of replacement spare parts, merely on account of depreciation, was not justified in the circumstances of that case.

The Court also considered Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. v. D.C. Vijay Kumar, where future-prospect compensation was supported by evidence that the claimant’s work had been restricted due to medical condition.

The Court accepted the claimant’s Sapthagiri Hospital net salary of ₹74,000 per month after statutory deductions and, despite the employment restriction on private practice, relied on Suguna Hospital records and bank statements to assess additional, non-fixed income at ₹26,000 per month.

It therefore calculated total monthly income at ₹1,00,000 and awarded ₹6,49,935 for 195 days of incapacity.

Given the injuries, it enhanced pain-and-suffering compensation to ₹1,50,000 and loss of amenities to ₹1,20,000.

Applying Narahari Pandit, it restored the full ₹55,178 vehicle-repair amount, finding the depreciation deduction unjustified.

It declined future-prospect compensation because there was no evidence of reduced duties or income; the cited decision involved such evidence.

The Court assessed total compensation at ₹11,91,907 and awarded an enhancement of ₹5,80,607 over the Tribunal’s award, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition until realization, except for the 238-day appeal-delay period.

The respondent was directed to deposit the enhanced amount within six weeks; 50% was to be released to the claimant and 50% placed in a three-year fixed deposit.