Unproved income in a 2019 accident claim is assessed at Karnataka’s ₹14,000 monthly notional-income benchmark.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Tribunal had properly assessed the appellant’s income for calculating loss of future income and loss of income during the laid-up period.

The court held

The appeal was allowed in part.

It also directed

The Court modified the award from ₹2,91,335 to ₹4,20,935, granting enhanced compensation of ₹1,29,600 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the appeal until realization.

The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced amount within six weeks of receiving the certified judgment, and the Tribunal was directed to release the entire amount to the claimant.

01Facts

On 3 April 2019, the appellant was injured when a car collided with his motorcycle near Annapurneshwari Ashrama Cross.

p. 3

He received treatment at Sanjay Gandhi Hospital and claimed to have spent more than ₹3,00,000 on treatment.

p. 3

The Tribunal partly allowed his claim, awarding ₹2,91,335, including compensation for future income loss based on monthly income of ₹11,000 and 10% disability.

p. 3 · p. 5

The appellant appealed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement, including on the basis of the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority’s notional-income chart.

p. 2 · p. 4

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Tribunal had properly assessed the appellant’s income for calculating loss of future income and loss of income during the laid-up period.

p. 4 · p. 5

ii.2. Whether the compensation awarded for pain and suffering and loss of amenities required enhancement.

p. 4 · p. 5

03Law Applied

Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for an appeal against an award of the Claims Tribunal.

p. 2

In assessing compensation where actual income is not established, the Court applied the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority’s notional-income figure of ₹14,000 per month for the relevant period.

p. 4 · p. 5

It calculated future income loss using the monthly income, annual multiplier of 16, and 10% disability, and assessed laid-up-period loss using the monthly income for three months.

p. 5

The judgment cites no precedent.

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

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173

04Reasoning

The Court held that the Tribunal’s use of ₹11,000 per month was not proper because the applicable notional income was ₹14,000 per month.

p. 5

Applying that income, a multiplier of 16, and 10% disability, it recalculated future income loss at ₹2,68,800; it assessed three months’ laid-up-period loss at ₹42,000.

p. 5

It also increased the amounts for pain and suffering by ₹30,000 and loss of amenities by ₹20,000, while leaving hospital and medicine expenses unchanged.

pp. 5–6

05Holding

The appeal was allowed in part.

pp. 6–7

The Court modified the award from ₹2,91,335 to ₹4,20,935, granting enhanced compensation of ₹1,29,600 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the appeal until realization.

pp. 6–7

The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced amount within six weeks of receiving the certified judgment, and the Tribunal was directed to release the entire amount to the claimant.

p. 7

LawLens.Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF