01Facts
On 22 May 2024, Shivamma was travelling in an NWKSRTC bus when it allegedly jumped over a speed breaker, causing her to fall from her seat and sustain injuries, including a fracture to the L2 vertebra.
¶ 3, 12She claimed that her injuries affected her ability to work as a seller of stationery materials.
¶ 4The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded her ₹5,15,524 with interest at 6% per annum.
¶ 7–8Seeking enhancement, she appealed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
¶ 102Issues
i.1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was inadequate and required modification
¶ 13(i)ii.2. What order should be made
¶ 13(ii)03Law Applied
Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for an appeal against an award of the Claims Tribunal.
p. 1In assessing loss of future income, the Court applied the multiplier method and relied on Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, which guided the selection of the multiplier by reference to the claimant’s age.
¶ 18The Court also applied the Karnataka Legal Services Authority’s income guidelines to determine the claimant’s monthly notional income for an accident occurring in 2024.
¶ 17Compensation was assessed under the relevant heads, including future income loss, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and loss of income during the laid-up period.
¶ 19–23Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173
04Reasoning
The Court considered the medical evidence, including the doctor’s evidence of a malunited fracture and continuing complaints, and found no material elicited in cross-examination to discredit the doctor’s testimony.
¶ 15Having regard to the injuries and medical records, it assessed whole-body disability at 20%.
¶ 16It adopted monthly income of ₹16,250 under the applicable guidelines and, for the claimant aged 46, applied a multiplier of 13; this yielded ₹5,07,000 for loss of future income.
¶ 17–18The Court also enhanced compensation for pain and suffering and laid-up-period income, and awarded compensation for loss of amenities.
¶ 19–23It left the Tribunal’s awards for food and nourishment, medical expenses, and inpatient charges undisturbed, and declined future medical expenses because the evidence did not establish a need for future treatment.
¶ 19–2305Holding
The Court partly allowed the appeal and enhanced the total compensation from ₹5,15,524 to ₹7,02,474.
¶ 24–25The enhanced amount carries interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition until payment, and the Corporation was directed to deposit it, with accrued interest, before the Tribunal within six weeks of receiving the certified copy of the judgment.
¶ 25Original Court PDF
SMT SHIVAMMAvsTHE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
