Facts
On 22 August 2018, the appellant, riding a motorcycle, sustained grievous injuries when the respondent No. 1’s motorcycle collided with it from behind.
Source reference: p. 3–6, 8The appellant claimed compensation, alleging permanent disability and loss of earning capacity.
Source reference: p. 3–6, 8The Tribunal awarded ₹3,04,195 with interest at 6% per annum, but directed the vehicle’s owner to pay because he lacked a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident.
Source reference: p. 3–6, 8The appellant appealed, seeking enhancement and payment by the insurer
Source reference: p. 3–6, 8Issues
1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was inadequate and required enhancement
Source reference: p. 7, para. 12(i)2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in directing the owner, rather than the insurer, to pay the compensation
Source reference: p. 7, para. 12(ii)Law Applied
Under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, an aggrieved party may appeal an award of the Claims Tribunal
Source reference: p. 2Where income is unproved, notional income may be assessed by reference to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority guidelines; for a 2018 accident, the court applied ₹11,750 per month
Source reference: p. 9, para. 15The multiplier method in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298, governs the calculation of future loss of income
Source reference: p. 9, para. 16Where the offending vehicle’s rider lacks a valid driving licence, the breach may relieve the insurer of the ultimate liability; however, applying the “pay and recover” principle, the insurer may be directed to satisfy the award first and recover the amount from the owner.
Source reference: pp. 12–17The court relied on Rama Bai v. Amit Minerals, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2067, and Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Om Parkash, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1445
Source reference: pp. 12–17Reasoning
The medical evidence established a comminuted fracture of the right tibia and fibula, surgery with implants, and 35% disability to the right ankle; the Tribunal’s assessment of 12% functional disability was not disturbed
Source reference: p. 8, para. 14Because the appellant’s income was unproved, the court applied the 2018 notional income of ₹11,750 per month.
Source reference: p. 9, paras. 15–17Given his age of 61, it applied a multiplier of 7 and the 12% functional disability, calculating future loss of income at ₹1,18,440
Source reference: p. 9, paras. 15–17It also revised compensation for laid-up-period earnings, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities, while retaining the Tribunal’s awards for medical and incidental expenses
Source reference: pp. 10–11, paras. 18–22On liability, the rider’s lack of a valid licence constituted a policy breach, but the court applied “pay and recover” and directed the insurer to satisfy the award first, with recovery from the owner
Source reference: pp. 12–18, paras. 24–27Holding
The appeal was allowed in part.
The compensation was enhanced from ₹3,04,195 to ₹3,48,995, with the enhanced amount carrying interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition until payment
Source reference: p. 18, para. 29The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with accrued interest before the Tribunal within the period specified in the judgment, and was permitted to recover that amount from the owner
Source reference: pp. 18–19, para. 29Acts & Sections Cited
5 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Motor Vehicles Act, 19885
Original Court PDF
SHRI. MARUTI S/O APPANNA PATILvsSHRI. JAYAVANT S/O NINGAPPA KHANAPURKAR
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
