Karnataka High Court
Transport, Maritime, and Aviation LawCivil Law

Whole-body disability was assessed at 16% based on the evidence of both specialists.

M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., vs SRI. MUKESH H R

Karnataka High CourtJUDGMENT: October 06, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Whole-body disability was assessed at 16% based on the evidence of both specialists.. M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., vs SRI. MUKESH H R. Karnataka High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The claimant sought compensation for injuries sustained in a road accident on 23 May 2024, alleging that the accident was caused by the negligent driving of a lorry.

Source reference: p.4, paras. 1, 3–4

The Tribunal awarded him ₹29,89,216 with interest at 6% per annum.

Source reference: p.4, paras. 1, 3–4

The claimant appealed seeking enhancement; the insurer separately appealed challenging the quantum of compensation.

Source reference: p.4, paras. 1, 3–4

The High Court considered, among other matters, the claimant’s disability, income, period of recovery, attendant-related expenses and future medical needs.

Source reference: pp. 6–11, paras. 8–17
02

Issues

Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal required enhancement for pain and suffering, loss of amenities, loss of income during the recovery period, and future medical expenses.

Source reference: pp. 6–7, para. 8; p. 9, para. 13; pp. 10–11, para. 17

Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of disability and its awards for loss of future income and attendant-related expenses were excessive or otherwise required modification.

Source reference: pp. 7–8, para. 9; pp. 10–11, paras. 14–16
03

Law Applied

The appeals were brought under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which provides for appeals against awards of a Claims Tribunal.

Source reference: pp. 2–3

In assessing compensation, the Court considered the evidence of the doctors, the claimant’s age, income and disability, and the expenses and treatment needs established on the record.

Source reference: no citation

It used the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority’s notional-income figure of ₹17,000 per month for 2024 and applied a multiplier of 17 for the claimant’s age.

Source reference: p. 8, para. 11

No judicial precedent was cited.

Source reference: no citation
04

Reasoning

The Court fixed the claimant’s whole-body disability at 16%, having considered the orthopaedic surgeon’s assessment of 17.3% and the plastic surgeon’s assessment of 15%, and calculated future income loss as ₹17,000 × 12 × 17 × 16%, or ₹5,54,880.

Source reference: pp. 10–11, paras. 15–16

It increased compensation for pain and suffering to ₹80,000, loss of amenities to ₹60,000, and four months’ loss of income to ₹68,000.

Source reference: pp. 9–11, paras. 13–17

It allowed ₹30,000 for implant removal and ₹2,00,000 for the anticipated debulking procedure, but reduced attendant, conveyance, food and nourishment expenses to ₹26,000 for 26 hospital days.

Source reference: pp. 9–11, paras. 13–17

It otherwise retained medical expenses of ₹18,10,014 and declined ambulance charges because the supporting bill lacked the required details.

Source reference: p. 9, para. 14
05

Holding

The Court partly allowed both appeals and fixed total compensation at ₹28,28,894, replacing the Tribunal’s award of ₹29,89,216.

Interest remained payable at 6% per annum from the date of the petition until realisation.

Source reference: pp. 11–13, paras. 18–20

The insurer was directed to deposit the compensation, including any amount already deposited, before the Tribunal within six weeks; the Tribunal’s directions concerning release and deposit otherwise remained unchanged.

Source reference: pp. 11–13, paras. 18–20
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

M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,vsSRI. MUKESH H R

Karnataka High Court · October 06, 2026

Click to open original judgment

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

Click to open original judgment