Karnataka High Court
Civil LawCivil Procedure and Evidence

Permanent disability warrants compensation for lost future earning capacity, replacing separate physical-disablement compensation.

SRI KIRAN KUMAR G vs THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER

Karnataka High CourtJUDGMENT: October 09, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Permanent disability warrants compensation for lost future earning capacity, replacing separate physical-disablement compensation.. SRI KIRAN KUMAR G vs THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER. Karnataka High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

On 5 October 2021, the claimant was injured when his motorcycle collided with a KSRTC bus. He sustained injuries including fractures to his right leg and foot and traumatic amputation of the second toe; he was hospitalised for 18 days.

Source reference: pp. 2, 6

He claimed to have worked as a mechanic earning ₹30,000 per month.

Source reference: pp. 3–4

The Tribunal awarded ₹3,51,200, including ₹1,50,000 for permanent physical disablement, but made no award for loss of future earning capacity or income during the laid-up period.

Source reference: pp. 3–4

The claimant appealed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement.

Source reference: p. 2
02

Issues

Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal required modification.

Source reference: p. 5

Whether the claimant was entitled to compensation for loss of future earning capacity and for other heads of loss not adequately compensated by the Tribunal.

Source reference: pp. 8–9
03

Law Applied

The appeal was brought under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which provides for an appeal against an award of a Claims Tribunal.

Source reference: p. 2

To assess income, the Court relied on the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority’s chart of notional income used for Lok Adalat purposes, taking the claimant’s monthly income as ₹15,000 because his asserted salary was not sufficiently proved.

Source reference: p. 7

For future earning loss, the Court applied the multiplier method, using the multiplier of 18 for the claimant’s age of 24 and an 18% whole-body disability assessment.

Source reference: pp. 7–8

The judgment cites no judicial precedents.

Source reference: no citation
04

Reasoning

The Court found that the claimant’s salary slips did not establish his actual income: they showed no deductions for ESI, provident fund or professional tax, and the employer was not examined. It therefore adopted notional income of ₹15,000 per month.

Source reference: p. 7

Although the doctor assessed 26% whole-body disability, the Tribunal’s 18% assessment was upheld because the medical assessment preceded removal of implants and the claimant was young.

Source reference: p. 8

Applying the multiplier method, the Court calculated loss of future earning capacity as ₹5,83,200 (₹15,000 × 12 × 18 × 18%).

Source reference: p. 8

It increased compensation for pain and suffering and loss of future amenities, awarded three months’ income for the laid-up period and ₹25,000 for loss of marriage prospects, and merged the Tribunal’s separate award for permanent physical disablement into the future-earning-capacity award.

Source reference: pp. 8–10
05

Holding

The Court partly allowed the appeal and enhanced the total compensation from ₹3,51,200 to ₹8,84,358.

The enhanced compensation carries interest at 6% per annum from the petition date until realisation, except for the delayed period of 154 days.

Source reference: p. 11

The respondent was directed to deposit the compensation with accrued interest before the Tribunal within eight weeks of receiving the certified judgment; disbursement and deposit remain subject to the Tribunal’s order.

Source reference: p. 11
06

Acts & Sections Cited

1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.

Motor Vehicles Act, 19881

Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF

SRI KIRAN KUMAR GvsTHE DIVISIONAL MANAGER

Karnataka High Court · October 09, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment