High Court of Karnataka Enhances Compensation for Injured Minor in Motor Accident Case — Multiplier Applied Based on Age of Injured, Not Age of Claimant. The Court held that for computing loss of future earning capacity of a minor, the multiplier must be determined with reference to the age of the injured, not the claimant.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: DHARWAD In Favour of Accused
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involves two appeals arising from a motor accident claim. The claimant, K. Koushik, a minor aged 18 years, suffered grievous injuries in a road accident on 30.05.2009. He filed a claim petition before the MACT, Kudligi, seeking compensation. The Tribunal partly allowed the claim and awarded Rs. 3,66,000/- with interest at 6% per annum. Dissatisfied with the quantum, the claimant filed MFA No. 20275/2011 seeking enhancement. The Insurance Company filed MFA No. 21043/2011 challenging the award. The High Court considered the issue of the correct multiplier for computing loss of future earning capacity. The Tribunal had applied multiplier 15 based on the age of the father (claimant), but the High Court held that the multiplier should be based on the age of the injured, i.e., 18 years, and applied multiplier 18 as per Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation. The Court also enhanced compensation under various heads: pain and suffering from Rs. 30,000 to Rs. 50,000; loss of amenities from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 20,000; attendant charges, conveyance, and nourishment each from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 15,000. Medical expenses of Rs. 1,00,000 were maintained. The total compensation was enhanced to Rs. 5,76,000. The Insurance Company's appeal was dismissed. The Court directed the Insurance Company to deposit the enhanced amount with interest.

Headnote

A) Motor Accident Compensation - Multiplier for Minor Injured - Loss of Future Earning Capacity - The multiplier should be based on the age of the injured person, not the age of the claimant. In this case, the injured was a minor aged 18 years, and the multiplier of 18 was applied as per Sarla Verma case. The Tribunal had erroneously applied multiplier of 15 based on the age of the father (claimant). Held that the multiplier must be determined with reference to the age of the injured. (Paras 6-8)

B) Motor Accident Compensation - Pain and Suffering - Minor Injured - The Tribunal awarded Rs. 30,000/- for pain and suffering. The High Court enhanced it to Rs. 50,000/- considering the nature of injuries and the fact that the injured was a minor. (Para 9)

C) Motor Accident Compensation - Loss of Amenities - Minor Injured - The Tribunal awarded Rs. 10,000/- for loss of amenities. The High Court enhanced it to Rs. 20,000/-. (Para 9)

D) Motor Accident Compensation - Medical Expenses - The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- towards medical expenses. The High Court maintained the same as it was supported by medical bills. (Para 9)

E) Motor Accident Compensation - Attendant Charges, Conveyance, and Nourishment - The Tribunal awarded Rs. 10,000/- each for attendant charges, conveyance, and nourishment. The High Court enhanced each to Rs. 15,000/-. (Para 9)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the multiplier for computing loss of future earning capacity in case of a minor injured should be based on the age of the injured or the age of the claimant?

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

MFA No. 20275/2011 allowed in part; compensation enhanced from Rs. 3,66,000 to Rs. 5,76,000. MFA No. 21043/2011 dismissed. Insurance Company directed to deposit the enhanced amount with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till deposit.

Law Points

  • Motor Accident Compensation
  • Multiplier for Minor Injured
  • Section 173(1) MV Act
  • 1988
  • Enhancement of Compensation
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2017 LawText (KAR) (01) 25

M.F.A Nos.20275/2011 c/w 21043/11 (MV)

2017-01-27

S. Sujatha

S.M. Kalwad, N.R. Kuppelur, A.M. Malipatil

Sri. K. Koushik (in MFA 20275/2011); The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (in MFA 21043/2011)

Sri. Sandeep, Sri. K. Mayurnath, The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (in MFA 20275/2011); Sri. K. Koushik, Sri. K. Mayurnath (in MFA 21043/2011)

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Motor Accident Claim - Appeal against quantum of compensation

Remedy Sought

Enhancement of compensation by claimant; reduction of compensation by Insurance Company

Filing Reason

Claimant dissatisfied with compensation awarded by Tribunal; Insurance Company challenging the award

Previous Decisions

MACT, Kudligi awarded Rs. 3,66,000/- with interest at 6% per annum in MVC No. 1020/2009 on 15.09.2010

Issues

Whether the multiplier for computing loss of future earning capacity should be based on the age of the injured or the age of the claimant? Whether the compensation awarded under various heads is just and proper?

Submissions/Arguments

Claimant argued that the Tribunal erred in applying multiplier 15 based on father's age instead of multiplier 18 based on injured's age, and that compensation under various heads is inadequate. Insurance Company argued that the award is excessive and that the multiplier applied by the Tribunal is correct.

Ratio Decidendi

For computing loss of future earning capacity of a minor injured, the multiplier must be determined with reference to the age of the injured person, not the age of the claimant. The multiplier of 18 as per Sarla Verma case applies for a minor aged 18 years.

Judgment Excerpts

The multiplier should be based on the age of the injured person and not on the age of the claimant. In the present case, the injured was aged 18 years, hence the multiplier of 18 is applicable.

Procedural History

Claim petition filed before MACT, Kudligi in MVC No. 1020/2009. Tribunal partly allowed claim on 15.09.2010 awarding Rs. 3,66,000. Claimant filed MFA No. 20275/2011 for enhancement. Insurance Company filed MFA No. 21043/2011 challenging award. Both appeals heard together.

Acts & Sections

  • Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: 173(1)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses State Appeal Against Acquittal of Accused in Murder Case — Common Intention Not Established. High Court's Finding That Accused Only Inflicted Lathi Blow on Legs, Not Sharing Intent to Kill, Upheld Under Section 302/34 IPC.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Petition and Quashes Detention Order Under COFEPOSA Act Due to Non-Application of Mind and Non-Supply of Vital Documents. Non-Consideration of Bail Order and Retraction of Statements Violates Right to Make Effective Represent...