Man Hit By Tanker After It Veered Onto Footpath: Karnataka HC Raises Award To ₹53 Lakh, Removes 20% Contributory Negligence

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in attributing 20% contributory negligence to the appellant when the tanker had veered onto the footpath and struck him

The court held

The appeal was allowed in part.

It also directed

The Court modified the Tribunal’s award and granted total compensation of Rs.53,01,956, without the 20% contributory-negligence deduction, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition until realization.

Respondent No. 2 was directed to deposit the amount within eight weeks of receiving the certified copy, and the Tribunal was directed to release the entire compensation to the appellant.

01Facts

The appellant was injured when a tanker struck him after entering the footpath while he was sitting outside a hotel. His leg was amputated above the knee.

pp. 3–5

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded him Rs.23,57,724.80, after attributing 20% contributory negligence to him; the award included Rs.9,00,000 for future prosthesis expenses.

pp. 3–5

He appealed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking enhanced compensation and challenging the contributory-negligence finding.

pp. 3–5

The High Court considered the Tribunal’s findings on negligence and quantum.

p. 5 · ¶ 9–12

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in attributing 20% contributory negligence to the appellant when the tanker had veered onto the footpath and struck him

p. 5 · ¶ 9

ii.2. Whether the compensation awarded for permanent disability, laid-up-period income loss, and other heads was adequate, and whether it required enhancement

pp. 6–8 · ¶ 10–12

03Law Applied

The appeal was considered under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

p. 2

For the 2019 accident, the Court applied the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority’s income guidelines, assessing notional monthly income at Rs.14,000.

p. 6 · ¶ 10

In calculating future loss of earnings, it applied 40% future prospects, a multiplier of 17 for the appellant’s age of 29, and 100% functional disability, having regard to the above-knee amputation and the appellant’s occupation as a driver.

p. 6 · ¶ 10

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

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173

04Reasoning

The Court found no cogent basis for the Tribunal’s finding of contributory negligence: the tanker had entered the footpath and struck the appellant, so the 20% deduction was erroneous and was set aside.

p. 5 · ¶ 9

For future earnings, the Court used monthly income of Rs.14,000, increased it by 40% to Rs.19,600, and applied the multiplier of 17 and 100% functional disability, arriving at Rs.39,98,400.

p. 6 · ¶ 10

It recalculated laid-up-period income loss at Rs.1,17,600 and enhanced compensation for pain and suffering, incidental expenses, and loss of amenities, while retaining the medical-expense and prosthesis awards.

pp. 7–8 · ¶ 11–12

05Holding

The appeal was allowed in part.

pp. 8–9 · ¶ 12 and order clauses (i)–(iii)

Respondent No. 2 was directed to deposit the amount within eight weeks of receiving the certified copy, and the Tribunal was directed to release the entire compensation to the appellant.

pp. 9–10 · order clauses (iv)–(v)

LawLens.Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF