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, 6He claimed to have worked as a mechanic earning ₹30,000 per month.
Source reference: pp. 3–4The 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. 3–4The claimant appealed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement.
Source reference: p. 2Issues
Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal required modification.
Source reference: p. 5Whether 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. 8–9Law 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. 2To 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. 7For 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. 7–8The judgment cites no judicial precedents.
Source reference: no citationReasoning
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. 7Although 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. 8Applying the multiplier method, the Court calculated loss of future earning capacity as ₹5,83,200 (₹15,000 × 12 × 18 × 18%).
Source reference: p. 8It 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. 8–10Holding
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. 11The 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. 11Acts & Sections Cited
1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Motor Vehicles Act, 19881
Original Court PDF
SRI KIRAN KUMAR GvsTHE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
