Loss of Amenities Cannot be Ignored: Karnataka HC Enhances Motor Accident Compensation

Karnataka High Court: The Single Judge Bench of Tara Vitasta Ganju, J., modified the impugned award and judgment by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), enhancing the compensation by ₹89,140. The Court took into consideration the notional income of the year 2016 and loss of amenities suffered by the petitioners.

Background

The present case arose when the driver of a bus belonging to Respondent 2 stated to be driven in a rash and negligent manner collided with lorry and another lorry on 15 January 2016. As a result of this accident, the petitioners who were travelling in the offending bus sustained multiple injuries. The petitioners were taken to hospital.

The appellant filed his claim petition stating that he was 25 years old and earning ₹12,000 per month from his avocation as a fitter. He submitted that despite costly treatment, his injuries were not properly healed and he has become disabled. The claim petition filed by the appellant-claimant under Section 166, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was allowed and a sum of ₹3,27,292 was granted along with interest at 6 per cent per annum.

The appellant dissatisfied with the award passed by the Additional Small Causes Judge and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru on 17 February 2018, filed the present appeal. The appellant submitted that he has 2 grounds for challenge. Firstly, that the notional income taken by the learned trial court was taken at ₹8000 per month whereas the accident happened on 15 January 2016 and for the year 2016 the notional income should have been ₹9500 per month. Secondly, he submits that no amount was awarded for loss of amenities including the loss of income suffered during treatment.

Issues

1. Whether the petitioners sustained grievous injuries in road traffic accident (RTA) on 15 January 2016 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to Respondent 2 insured with Respondent 1?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation from whom?

3. What order or award?

Decision and Analysis

The Insurance Company’s counsel fairly conceded that the Trial Court had wrongly calculated the notional income and that no amount had been granted for loss of amenities.

The Court after perusing the findings and the amounts calculated held that although the award provides for pain and suffering and conveyance and nourishment, no amounts had been given for loss of amenities. It further noted that the amounts for loss of future earnings and loss of income during treatment required recalculation in accordance with the Schedule. Accordingly, the Court deemed it apposite to award loss of amenities at ₹30,000 and applied ₹9,500 per month as the notional income for the year 2016.

The Court after considering the submissions, decided the compensation to the appellant to be awarded under the following grounds:-

The Court, while allowing the appeal, specified that the impugned judgment and award dated 17 February 2018 passed by Additional Small Causes Judge and the MACT stands modified to the extent that the appellant-petitioner is entitled to enhanced compensation of ₹89,140 along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum, in addition to ₹3,27,292 that has been awarded by the Tribunal. The Court specified that the remaining portion of the impugned award of the Tribunal shall remain undisturbed.

The Court directed the Insurance Company to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest at 6 per cent per month within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the judgment. The Court further directed the amount in deposit made by the Insurance Company before this Court shall be transmitted to the Tribunal within a week.

[Kanchipathi v. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., 2026 SCC OnLine Kar 2995, decided on 22-1-2026]

*Judgment authored by: Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner: Yogesha G.K., Advocate

For the Respondent: Vijaya Kumar, Advocate