MANTHAMMA @ MAHANTHAMMA vs G B RAJANNA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61596
MFA No. 9642 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 6943 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010486962017



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


TH
DATED THIS THE 5 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.9642 OF 2017(MV-I)

C/W

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6943 OF 2017(MV-I)

IN MFA No. 9642/2017:

BETWEEN:

MANTHAMMA @ MAHANTHAMMA
W/O LAKSHMANAM,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/O CHIPPINAKERE VILLAGE,
CHITRDURGA TALUK - 577 501.

…APPELLANT
[BY SRI N.R. RANGEGOWDA, ADVOCATE (PH)]





AND:

1. G B RAJANNA
S/O G.B.BASAVARAJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/O MALENAHALLY VILALGE,
KUDLIGI TALUK - 583 135.

2. THE BRANCH MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE,
JAGALURU MAHALINGAPPA COMPLEX,
B.D.ROAD, CHITRADURGA - 577 501.

…RESPONDENTS


Digitally signed
by ANUSHA V
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka

[BY SRI P. NATARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1 (PH);
SRI SRINIVASA K.N., ADVOCATE FOR R2 (PH)]

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.04.2017 PASSED IN MVC

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61596
MFA No. 9642 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 6943 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010486962017


ND
NO.377/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE 2 ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE & ADDITIONAL MACT-5, CHITRADURGA, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

IN MFA NO. 6943/2017:
BETWEEN:
THE BRANCH MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD
JAGALURU MAHALINGAPPA COMPLEX
B D ROAD, CHITRADURGA
NOW REPTD BY REGIONAL MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD
NO.144, SUBHARAM COMPLEX
M G ROAD, BENGALURU 560001.

...APPELLANT
[BY SRI A.N. KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE (PH)]

AND:
1. SMT.MANTHAMMA @ MAHANTHAMMA,
W/O LAKSHMANAM
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST,
R/AT CHIPPINAKERE VILLAGE
CHITRADURGA TQ - 577 542.

2. SRI G B RAJANNA
S/O G B BASAVARAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/AT MALENAHALLI VILLAGE
KUDLIGI TQ - 583 101.

...RESPONDENTS
[BY SRI N.R. RANGEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI P. NATARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (PH)]

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61596
MFA No. 9642 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 6943 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010486962017


THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.04.2017 PASSED
IN MVC NO.377/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE 2ND
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDITIONAL MACT-5,
CHITRADURGA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
RS.9,16,100/- WITH INTEREST AT 7.5% P.A. FROM THE
DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION , THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

ORAL JUDGMENT

Challenging judgment and award dated 25.04.2017
passed by II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT,
Chitradurga, in MVC no.377/2016, these appeals are filed.


2. MFA no.9642/2017 is filed by claimant for
enhancement of compensation, while MFA no.6943/2017 is filed
by insurer challenging finding of Tribunal on liability and on
quantum.


3. Brief facts leading to these cases as per claimant
were that at 1:45 pm on 08.02.2015 when claimant was
walking by side of road near Nayakanahatty Math,

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61596
MFA No. 9642 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 6943 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010486962017


Kalyanamantapa, driver of Tractor Trailer no. KA-35/TA-1369-
70 drove it in rash and negligent manner and dashed against
her. In accident, she sustained grievous injuries and despite
treatment at SSIMS Hospital, Davanagere, she did not recover
fully and there was amputation of her right leg below knee. Due
to same, she sustained loss of earning capacity. Therefore, she
filed claim petition in MVC no.377/2016 under Section 166 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( 'MV Act ') owner and insurer of
Tractor Trailer.


4. On contest, wherein claim petition was opposed on
all grounds, Tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence.


5. Claimant along with Dr.Ambrish deposed as PWs.1
and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P20. On other hand, two
witnesses were examined by respondents as RWs.1 and 2 and
got marked Exs.R1 to R4.


6. On consideration, Tribunal held accident had
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Tractor Trailer by
its driver causing permanent physical disability, loss of earning

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61596
MFA No. 9642 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 6943 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010486962017


capacity and claimant was entitled for compensation from
insurer. Dissatisfied with findings, these appeals are filed.


7. Sri N.R. Rangegowda, learned counsel for appellant
- claimant submitted that as on date of accident, claimant was
40 years of age doing agriculture and earning Rs.2,00,000/-
per annum. However without justification, Tribunal assessed
her monthly income at only Rs.6,000/-. Further, medical
records as well as deposition of PW.2 would indicate that
claimant had sustained amputation of right leg below knee
assessed by PW.2 to have caused 70% disability. However,
Tribunal assessed functional disability at only 60% which was
on lower side.


8. Relying on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
case of S. Ettiappan v. D. Kumar and Anr. , reported in 2025
SCC OnLine SC 3690 , it was submitted that in case of
amputation of leg functional disability at 100% was considered
and sought for adoption of same.


9. It was further submitted that Tribunal erred in not
adding future prospects to monthly income. Even compensation

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61596
MFA No. 9642 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 6943 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010486962017


of only Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.20,000/-
towards diet and other incidental expenses; Rs.48,100/-
towards medical expenses; Rs.50,000/- towards loss amenities
and for artificial limb and Rs.50,000/- towards future attendant
charges were on lower side and sought enhancement.


10. In MFA no.6943/2017, Sri A.N. Krishna Swamy,
learned counsel for appellant - insurer submitted that appeal
was filed mainly challenging finding of Tribunal on liability.
Alleging that merely on ground that driver held driving licence
to drive Tractor only and would not justify fastening of liability
on insurer as accident in question was caused by a Tractor
attached with Trailer i.e. Tractor Trailer unit, which would be a
goods vehicle. It was further submitted that age of claimant in
prosecution records was 48 years. Therefore, Tribunal was not
justified in assessing her age at 40 years and applying higher
multiplier. It was further submitted that award of interest at
7.5% was also excessive and seeks reduction.


11. In reply, learned counsel for claimant would
submits that there was no substance in insurer's appeal but
fairly conceded for reduction of rate of interest to 6%.

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61596
MFA No. 9642 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 6943 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010486962017



12. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned
judgment, award and material on record.


13. From above since both insurer as well as claimant
are in appeals, points that would arise for consideration are:
1. Whether Tribunal was justified in holding
insurer liable to pay compensation?


2. Whether assessment of compensation by
Tribunal calls for modification?

Point no.1:

14. To establish actionable negligence against insurer,
claimant relied on prosecution records, namely complaint, FIR,
spot mahazar, wound certificate, motor vehicle inspector's
report and charge sheet marked as Exs.P1 to P6. Respondents
have led evidence and got marked driving licence extract as
Ex.R1 and insurance policy as Ex.R2. While passing impugned
award, Tribunal referred to same and observed that Ex.R1
would indicate that driver had driving licence to drive Tractor.
Though accident had occurred while Tractor was attached with
Trailer, as per prosecution records, claimant sustained injuries
due to collision by Tractor engine and not with Trailer. Under

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61596
MFA No. 9642 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 6943 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010486962017


above circumstances, challenge of liability on ground of driving
licence would not be substantiated. That apart, Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Nagashetty v. United India Insurance
Company Limited and Ors. , reported in (2001) 8 SCC 56 ,
held merely on ground that a Trailer is attached to Tractor,
when driver of Tractor holds driving license to drive Tractor,
insurer cannot avoid liability. Same would also apply to instant
case. Point no.1 is therefore answered in affirmative .

Point no.2:

15. Though claimant stated that she was 40 years old,
agriculturist earning Rs.2,00,000/- per annum, same was not
substantiated with any material. In absence, Tribunal assessed
her income notionally at Rs.6,000 per month. But notional
income for year 2015 being Rs.9,000, Tribunal was not justified
in considering it at Rs.6,000/-.


16. Further, t here is dispute about age of claimant. As
per claim petition and medical records, her age was 40 years.
But prosecution records would note it as 48 years. Tribunal
considered her age as 40 years. Though insurer is contending
perversity of finding, there is no specific document about age of

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61596
MFA No. 9642 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 6943 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010486962017


claimant. In absence, age could be determined by referring to
material on record. Though there is conflict between
prosecution records and medical records, age mentioned in
medical records would fare better than prosecution records and
Tribunal justified in considering same.


17. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Erudhaya Priya
v. State Express Transport Corporation Ltd. , reported in
2020 SCC OnLine SC 601 , has held that future prospects has
to be added to monthly income even in personal injury claim.
Since claimant is 40 years of age and self-employed, future
prospects at 40% has to be added. Insofar as loss of earning
capacity, there is no dispute about claimant having sustained
amputation of right leg below knee. Ex.P10 - photographs
would indicate that claimant was using artificial limb same
would mitigate loss of earning to some certain extent. There is
no material to establish that claimant was totally disabled from
doing agriculture or any other alternate avocation to earn
income as would supplement her regular income. Though
Ex.P14 - disability certificate issued by PW.2 would assess
physical disability at 70%, Tribunal assessed functional

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61596
MFA No. 9642 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 6943 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010486962017


disability at 60%. Assessment of functional disability or loss of
earning capacity cannot be directly proportionate to physical
disability. It would require moderation based on avocation and
how disability sustained affects earning capacity. Under above
circumstances, assessment of functional disability at 60% by
Tribunal is held as justified. Consequently, compensation
towards future loss of income would be (Rs.9,000/- + 40%) =
Rs.12,600/- X 60% X 12 X 15 = Rs.13,60,800/- .


18. Considering fact that claimant has sustained
amputation of right leg below knee, award of Rs.1,00,000/-
towards pain and suffering would not be justified. Referring to
decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Raj Kumar v.
Ajay Kumar and Ors. , reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343 it is
found appropriate to enhance it to Rs.1,50,000/- . Considering
inpatient treatment period of 40 days, award of Rs.20,000/-
towards diet and other incidental expenses would appear just
and proper, no enhancement. There is complete reimbursement
of amount for which medical bills were produced. Hence,
compensation of Rs.48,100/- towards medical expenses is
sustained. Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- towards loss of

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61596
MFA No. 9642 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 6943 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010486962017


amenities and artificial limb apart from an additional amount of
Rs.50,000/- towards future attendant charges. There would be
no basis for award of future attendant charges as this is not a
case of total disablement. However, taking judicial notice of
fact that artificial limb would require periodic maintenance and
replacement and considering age of claimant at 40 years and
requirement of replacement of artificial limb several times
during her lifetime, it is found fit to modify award towards loss
of amenities, artificial limb and future attendant charges to
Rs.2,00,000/- . It is also seen that Tribunal has not awarded
any compensation towards laid-up period. Taking 3 months as
layoff, claimant would be entitled to Rs.27,000/- towards
same. Thus, total re-assessed compensation would be
Rs.18,05,900/- . Therefore, point no.2 is answered partly in
affirmative .


19. Consequently, following:
ORDER

(a) MFA no.6943/2017 filed by insurer is
allowed in part only insofar as interest,
which is reduced from 7.5% to 6% .

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61596
MFA No. 9642 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 6943 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010486962017



(b) MFA no.9642/2017 filed by claimant is
allowed in part , judgment and award dated
25.04.2017 passed by Tribunal, in MVC
no.377/2016 is modified , enhancing t otal
compensation to Rs.18,05,900/- as against
Rs.9,16,100/- assessed by Tribunal.


(c) Same shall carry interest of 6% per annum
from date of claim petition till its realization.


(d) Insurer is directed to deposit re-assessed
compensation with interest before Tribunal
within six weeks.


(e) On deposit, 25% of re-assessed
compensation is ordered to released in
favour of claimant, with liberty to claimant to
seek release of remaining compensation by
showing just cause.


Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE


GRD
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10