SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 35192

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Rajesh Rai K, J
KRISHNEGOWDA – Appellant
Versus
PUSHPA – Respondent
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6278 OF 2022 (MV-I)



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Chethan B.
For the Respondents: H.C. Bestur

Important Points

In motor accident claims, where documentary evidence of income is unavailable, the court should adopt the monthly income determined by the State Legal Services Authority and apply future prospects and multipliers based on age and disability.

Subject

Civil - Motor Accident Claims

Act Referred

Headnote

The appeal was filed under S. 173(1) of the MV Act challenging the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in a motor accident claim. The claimant sought enhancement of the award, while the court confirmed the permanent disability of 27% to the whole body but found the assessment of monthly income to be incorrect. The primary issue was the determination of the correct monthly income and the applicable interest rate. The court reasoned that in the absence of credible documentary evidence, the monthly income should be based on the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority guidelines, adding 10% for future prospects and applying a multiplier of 9 based on the claimant's age. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part
Table of Content
1. assessment of accident facts and confirmation of permanent disability. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. determination of monthly income using kslsa guidelines and future prospects. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
3. adjustment of non-pecuniary damages and confirmation of medical expenses. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
4. final calculation of modified compensation and reduction of interest rate. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)

Digitally signed by PANKAJA S …APPELLANT

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.04.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.49/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MEMBER, ADDITONAL MACT, HASSAN.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The claimant, being dissatisfied with the compensation of Rs.6,40,448/- awarded by the Tribunal, is in appeal.

2. The fact that the accident occurred and the further fact that the offending vehicle was insured is not in dispute.

3. The Tribunal, on assessment of evidence, has awarded the following sums as compensation:

Sl. No. Particulars Amount in (Rs.)
1. Pain and sufferings 80,000
2. Medical expenses 82,368
3. Diet, food, nourishment, attendant and conveyance charges, 30,000
4. Loss of income during laid up period 39,000
5. Loss of future income 3,79,080
6. Loss of amenities 30,000
Total 6,40,448

4. The Tribunal, on an analysis of the medical evidence, has concluded that the claimant has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 27% to the whole body, which is just and proper.

5. The Tribunal has wrongly assessed the monthly income of the injured at Rs.13,000/-. Since there is no credible documentary evidence to ascertain the actual monthly income, the Tribunal ought to have taken the monthly income determined by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, which, for the accident of the year 2017, would be Rs.11,000/-. Since the disability is at the rate of 27%, in view of law laid by the Division Bench of this Court in MFA No.103807/2016 and connected with other matter and also by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sidram vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd reported in 2023 (3) SCC 439, the future prospects of 10% is added to the income. Hence, the income would be at Rs.12,100/- (11,000 + 10%).

6. As the claimant was aged 58 years, a multiplier of '9' would have to be applied. Consequently, the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.3,52,836/- (12,100 x 12 x 9 x 27%) towards 'loss of future income'.

7. As a consequence, the amount of Rs.39,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards 'loss of income during the laid up period' would also come to Rs.33,000/- (11,000 X 3).

8. Having regard to the injuries suffered by the claimant, the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards 'pain and suffering' as against Rs.80,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

9. Having regard to the lasting effects of the injuries on the claimant, the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities, as against the sum of Rs.30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

10. The sum awarded as medical expenses at Rs.82,368/-, being based on documentary evidence, do not call for modification and hence confirmed.

11. The sums awarded under other heads of compensation granted by the Tribunal, remains unaltered.

12. Consequently, the award of the Tribunal is modified and the claimant would be entitled to the following compensation:

Sl. No. Compensation under different Heads As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.) As awarded by this Court (Rs.)
1. Pain and sufferings 80,000 1,00,000
2. Medical expenses 82,368 82,368
3. Diet, food, nourishment, attendant and conveyance charges, 30,000 30,000
4. Loss of income during laid up period 39,000 33,000
5. Loss of future inc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top