Karnataka High Court Raises Compensation for Vendor Who Lost Limb in Accident, Stresses Need to Consider Occupation in Assessing Functional Disability
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Karnataka, Single Bench of Justice Dr. Chillakur Sumalatha recently enhanced the compensation for a vegetable vendor who lost his left leg in a 2022 road accident, raising the award granted by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal from ₹5,98,300 to ₹11,40,795. The Court directed the BMTC’s Motor Claims Hub to deposit the enhanced amount with 6% annual interest, excluding the period of litigation delay. Stating the impact on the victim’s livelihood, Justice Sumalatha observed that for a vegetable vendor, the loss of a lower limb makes it highly difficult to continue the occupation, and functional disability must be assessed in light of the claimant’s daily duties
The case arose from a road traffic accident that occurred on May 25, 2022, in which a vegetable vendor sustained serious injuries resulting in the below-knee amputation of his left leg. He subsequently filed a petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in Bengaluru, seeking ₹50,00,000 as compensation for the injuries, medical expenses, loss of income, and other related heads.
The Tribunal partly allowed the claim and awarded ₹5,98,300 as compensation. Dissatisfied with the quantum, the claimant appealed to the High Court of Karnataka, seeking enhancement of the amount on the grounds that the Tribunal had underestimated his income and failed to adequately consider his loss of livelihood as a vegetable vendor. The appellant argued that he had been earning approximately ₹2,000 per day before the accident but had become permanently disabled due to the amputation. He further contended that the Tribunal failed to award compensation for loss of earnings during the recovery period.
The respondent, the Managing Director of the Motor Claims Hub of BMTC, opposed the appeal and argued that the Tribunal’s award was reasonable and that the claimant had not provided substantive proof of his income at the time of the accident.
The High Court examined the evidence, including medical testimony that assessed 70% disability in the left lower limb, which the Tribunal had calculated as 25% for the whole body.
Justice Sumalatha recorded that “for a vegetable vendor, it will be highly difficult to continue his occupation and earn in the light of loss of one of the lower limbs.” The Court noted, “Therefore, it would be highly difficult for such a person to work with only one lower limb functioning.”
Considering the appellant’s occupation and nature of work, the Court determined that the functional disability in respect of the whole body should be taken as 40%. The Court took into account the appellant’s age of 60 years at the time of the accident and, following the Supreme Court’s judgements in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., held that a 10% addition towards future prospects was appropriate, applying a multiplier of nine.
The Court recalculated the compensation under the head of loss of future earnings on account of permanent physical disability, arriving at Rs. 7,36,560. Justice Sumalatha noted that “the tribunal failed to award any sum as compensation towards loss of income during laid up period,” and observed that due to the amputation, “the appellant would have taken considerable time to get the wound healed, to get trained to walk with only one lower limb, thereafter to attend his normal pursuits and to proceed with his occupation.” The Court determined that a recovery period of eight months was reasonable and awarded Rs. 1,24,000 towards loss of income during the laid-up period.
The Court further recorded that, given the nature of injuries and treatment undergone, the appellant was entitled to Rs. 1,00,000 under the head of pain and suffering, Rs. 25,000 towards food, nourishment, attendant, and conveyance charges, Rs. 50,000 towards loss of amenities in life, and Rs. 1,00,000 for future medical expenses. The total compensation was thus recalculated at Rs. 11,40,795.
The Court observed that the tribunal had rightly recognized the accident and resultant injuries but had failed to properly evaluate the loss of earning capacity and ancillary losses. Justice Sumalatha stated that the evidence clearly established the appellant’s reduced capacity to engage in gainful employment in his line of work and that “without considering the occupation and earnings of the appellant the tribunal took the notional income as Rs. 15,000 per month and awarded a meager sum as compensation.”
Allowing the appeal in part, the Court enhanced the compensation from Rs. 5,98,300 to Rs. 11,40,795. Justice Sumalatha directed that “the enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.” However, the appellant was “not entitled for any interest for the period of delay of 222 days as per the orders in I.A. No. 1/2024.” The respondent, BMTC Motor Claims Hub, was directed to deposit the enhanced amount within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment.
With these directions, the appeal was disposed of, and the judgment and award of the tribunal were modified accordingly.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Appellant: Sri Gurudev Prasad K.T, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Sri Nagaraja K, Advocate.
Case Title: Sri Muniyappa v. The Managing Director, Motor Claims Hub, BMTC
Neutral Citation: 2025: KHC:35769
Case Number: MFA No. 4426 of 2024
Bench: Justice Dr. Chillakur Sumalatha
