Karnataka High Court
Transport, Maritime, and Aviation LawCivil Law

For upper-limb disability, one-fourth of the assessed disability is taken as whole-body disability.

MANJAMMA vs MADHULATHA M

Karnataka High CourtJUDGMENT: September 29, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
For upper-limb disability, one-fourth of the assessed disability is taken as whole-body disability.. MANJAMMA vs MADHULATHA M. Karnataka High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The claimant sought compensation for injuries sustained in a road traffic accident on 24 June 2019, allegedly caused by the rash and negligent riding of a scooter.

Source reference: p. 3–4, paras. 3–4

The Tribunal awarded global compensation of ₹1,00,000, with interest at 6% per annum, and directed the insurer to pay.

Source reference: p. 3–4, paras. 3–4

The claimant appealed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement.

Source reference: p. 2

The High Court treated the claimant as aged 45 at the time of the accident, noted her occupation as agriculture and coolie work, and considered her radius fracture, head injury, and assessed 18% disability of the right upper limb.

Source reference: p. 4, para. 6; p. 5, paras. 7–8
02

Issues

Whether the claimant was entitled to enhanced compensation, including compensation for loss of future income arising from disability.

Source reference: p. 4–6, paras. 6–9

Whether interest was payable on the enhanced compensation for the period of delay in filing the appeal.

Source reference: p. 6, para. 9
03

Law Applied

The appeal was brought under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which provides for an appeal against an award of a Claims Tribunal.

Source reference: p. 2

In assessing compensation, the Court applied the multiplier method to calculate loss of future income: monthly notional income × 12 × applicable multiplier × whole-body disability percentage.

Source reference: p. 5, para. 8

It treated disability to the whole body as one-fourth of the assessed disability to the upper limb in this case.

Source reference: p. 5, para. 8

The judgment cites no precedent or further statutory provision governing the assessment.

Source reference: no citation
04

Reasoning

In the absence of evidence of actual income, the Court fixed notional monthly income at ₹14,000 and applied a multiplier of 14 based on the claimant’s age.

Source reference: p. 4, para. 6

It assessed 18% disability to the right upper limb and converted this to 4.5% whole-body disability, producing future-income loss of ₹1,05,840.

Source reference: p. 5, para. 8

It also awarded amounts for pain and suffering, medical expenses, attendant and conveyance charges, loss of income during the laid-up period, and loss of amenities, bringing total compensation to ₹2,41,908.

Source reference: p. 4–6, paras. 7–9

The Court excluded interest for the 811-day delay in filing the appeal, consistent with the order dated 29 July 2026.

Source reference: p. 6, para. 9
05

Holding

The appeal was allowed in part.

The claimant was awarded enhanced compensation of ₹1,41,908, over and above the Tribunal’s award, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition until realization, but without interest for the 811-day appeal-delay period.

Source reference: p. 6–7, paras. 9–10

The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced amount with interest before the Tribunal within six weeks, and the claimant was permitted to withdraw the entire enhanced amount.

Source reference: p. 7, para. 10
06

Acts & Sections Cited

1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.

Motor Vehicles Act, 19881

Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF

MANJAMMAvsMADHULATHA M

Karnataka High Court · September 29, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment