Unchallenged contributory negligence apportionment remains undisturbed in a compensation enhancement appeal.

On 24 October 2020, the appellant, an agricultural coolie, was struck from behind by a truck while returning from a morning walk and sustained injuries.

He claimed that his injuries prevented him from continuing agricultural work.

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal assessed his monthly income at ₹13,250, fixed whole-body disability at 8%, awarded compensation of ₹3,28,490, and attributed 25% contributory negligence to him.

He appealed, seeking enhancement of compensation; the negligence finding was not challenged.

The High Court identified the appeal as concerning the adequacy of compensation.

1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was inadequate and warranted modification

2. Whether the Tribunal’s finding attributing 25% contributory negligence to the appellant should be disturbed, despite not being challenged in the appeal

Under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, an aggrieved party may appeal an award of the Claims Tribunal.

For calculating loss of future income, the Court applied the multiplier of 17 for the appellant’s age of 28, relying on Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298.

In the absence of proof of income, it accepted the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority’s guideline income of ₹13,250 per month for an accident occurring in 2020.

The Court assessed functional disability by reference to the injuries and medical evidence, and applied the established approach of calculating future income loss by multiplying monthly income by 12, the applicable multiplier, and the whole-body disability percentage.

An unchallenged finding of contributory negligence was left undisturbed, and compensation was reduced accordingly.

The appellant had not proved his income, so the Court retained the Tribunal’s monthly income assessment of ₹13,250.

However, having regard to the medical evidence of spinal and other injuries, the doctor’s disability assessment, and the appellant’s reported restrictions, it found the Tribunal’s 8% whole-body disability assessment too low and reassessed it at 11%.

Applying the multiplier of 17, it calculated future income loss at ₹2,97,330.

It also increased compensation for pain and suffering and food and nourishment, allowed compensation for loss of amenities, and assessed three months’ loss of income during the laid-up period; medical expenses and travel expenses were left unchanged.

As the appellant had not challenged the 25% contributory-negligence finding, the Court applied that deduction to the revised total.

The Court enhanced the gross compensation from ₹3,28,490 to ₹4,81,080 and, after deducting 25% for contributory negligence, held the appellant entitled to ₹3,60,810.

The enhanced compensation carries interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition until payment.

The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with accrued interest before the Tribunal within six weeks of receiving the certified copy of the judgment.