Karnataka High Court
Kum Priyanka H D vs M Channakeshavegowda on 14 November, 2025
-1-
MFA No. 4129 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4129 OF 2017(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
KUM. PRIYANKA H.D.
D/O H.R.DIVAKARA,
AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS,
SINCE MINOR REP. BY HER FATHER
AND NATURAL GUARDIAN,
SRI.H.R.DIVAKARA,
S/O H.N.RAMAIAH,
MAJOR,
R/AT HONNAVALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
ARKALGUD TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201.
...APPELLANT
(BY MISS. SHALINI C. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. NINGARAJA M N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M. CHANNAKESHAVEGOWDA
S/O MARIYAPPAGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT KASABA HOBLI,
ARKALGUD TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201.
2. MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
SREE MANJUNATHESHWARA COMPLEX,
NEAR OLD BUS STAND,
POST BOX NO.112,
-2-
MFA No. 4129 of 2017
HASSAN TOWN
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAVISH BENNI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
V/O DATED:24.04.2025, NOTICE TO R-1 IS D/W)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S
173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO ALLOW
THE APPEAL AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
07.05.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.316/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL AT ARKALGUD, BY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION
IN ITS ENTIRETY WITH 12% INTEREST IN THE ENDS OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 28.10.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED
THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
CAV JUDGMENT
The present appeal is filed to set aside the Judgment and Award dated 07.05.2016, passed in M.V.C No.316/215 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and MACT at Arkalgud (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short) and allow this appeal by enhancing the compensation. -3- MFA No. 4129 of 2017
The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows:
2. On 22.08.2014 the appellant was proceeding by walk near Honnavalli, the rider of the Motor Bike bearing Reg No Ka-13-S-5707 by riding in a rash and negligent manner with excessive speed and dashed against the appellant and hereby she sustained grievous injury to all over the body. Immediately she was given first aid treatment at Government Hospital Arkalgud, later admitted to SSM Hospital, Hassan. Towards the medical expenses, an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- was spent and she was adviced bed rest for Two month. During that time, attendant was engaged to look after her by paying salary of Rs.8,000/- per month. In addition to that a sum of Rs.2,000/- was spent for conveyance.
3. On service of notice, the respondents No.1 and No.2 appeared through their counsels and filed written statement in which averments made in petition were denied. It has contended that the rider of the said motor bike did not have valid and effective driving licence. It is -4- MFA No. 4129 of 2017 further contended that, if the Court holds that the first respondent is liable to pay compensation, the vehicle is insured with second respondent and there the second respondent is liable to indemnify respondent No.1. In the objection statement, filed by respondent No.2, the liability of the insurance company to compensation is denied. The averment is denied by the respondent No.2.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed issues and recorded the evidence. The father of the claimant was examined as PW-1 and marked the documents EX.P.1 to 69 and Doctor Gangu Hirala is examined as P.W.2 and marked the documents as Ex.C.1 to 3. The Tribunal, by the impugned judgment and Award, inter alia held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle (motor bike) as a result of which the claimant suffered grievous injuries all over her body. Further, it was also held that claimant was entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,66,818/-, with interest 8 % p.a., and directed that the respondents -5- MFA No. 4129 of 2017 No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount.
5. The Tribunal has awarded compensation under different heads as under:
Sl. Particulars Rs.
No.
1. Medical bills, conveyance, Rs.46,818.00/-
attendant charges and
miscellaneous expenses
2. Pain and sufferings Rs. 1,00.000/-
3. Discomfort, inconvenience Rs. 20,000/-
loss of earning to the
parents
Total Rs.1,66,818/-
6. It is contended by the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant that as a result of the accident, she has sustained grievous injury to all over the body and immediately she was treated as an inpatient and was advised to bed rest for Two months. During this time, she suffered severe physical pain and sustained fracture. The appellant contends that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the extent of her suffering and ought to have awarded -6- MFA No. 4129 of 2017 higher compensation under this head. It is further submitted that the appellant incurred expenses Rs.36,818/- towards the Doctor, bed charges, service charges, O.T charges, medicines and attendant charges.
However, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.46,818/- towards medical expenses, Rs.20,000/- towards loss of earning to the parents, and Rs.1,00,000/- for pain and suffering, which are highly inadequate.
7. The appellant, therefore, prays for enhancement of compensation under these heads commensurate with actual expenditure and suffering sustained.
8. It is further contended that prior to the accident, the appellant was hale and health. However, due to the said accident, she has suffered permanent disability. The appellant has been treated considerable period on 22.08.2014 two surgeries were made and rod and screws were fixed. She was treated as inpatient from 22.08.2014 to 26.08.2014 for four to five month the appellant was suffering from pain. The appellant has -7- MFA No. 4129 of 2017 suffered 28% permanent disability to her left leg. The Tribunal has erred in awarding only Rs.46,818/- towards attendant charges without any compensation towards loss of amenities and enjoyment of life, towards future earning capacity and towards food and nourishment and conveyance.
9. The appellant therefore prays for enhancement of compensation under the heads of loss of amenities and enjoyment of life, future earning capacity and food and nourishment and conveyance.
10. In support of his contentions, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Mallikarjun v Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and Another (Civil Appeal No.7139 of 2013 dated 26.08.2013), the Apex Court laid down a broad guideline for just compensation in cases involving non-earning person or minors who suffer permanent disability as observed under:
-8-MFA No. 4129 of 2017
"A child cannot be equated to such a non-earning person. Therefore, the compensation is to be worked out under the non-pecuniary heads in addition to the actual amounts incurred for treatment done and or to be done, transportation, assistance of attendant, etc., The main elements of damage in the case of child victims are the pain, shock, frustration, deprivation of ordinary pleasures and enjoyment associated with healthy and mobile limbs. The compensation awarded should enable the child to acquire something or to develop a lifestyle which will offset to some extent the inconvenience or discomfort arising out of the disability. Appropriate compensation for disability should take care of all the non-pecuniary damages. In other words, apart from this head, there shall only be the claim for the actual expenditure for treatment, attendant and transportation...............
Though it is difficult to have an accurate assessment of the compensation in the case of children suffering disability on account of a Motor vehicle accident, having regard to the relevant factors, precedents and the approach of various High Courts, we are of the view that -9- MFA No. 4129 of 2017 the appropriate compensation on all other heads in addition to the actual expenditure for treatment attendant, etc., should be, if the disability is above 10% and upto 30% to the whole body, Rs. 3 lakh, upto 60% Rs.4 lakh, upto 90% Rs.5 lakh and above 90%, it should be Rs.6 lakh. For permanent disability upto 10%, it should be Rs 1 lakh".
11. Hence, the Apex Court held that in cases of individual suffering permanent disability in motor vehicle accidents, a just and reasonable compensation is to be awarded based on the percentage of disability, irrespective of proof of income or loss of future earnings.
12. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as respondents No.1 and 2.
13. In view of the law laid by the Apex Court in Mallikarjun's case (supra) it is observed that the appellant herein, girl with no proven income, has suffered 28% permanent disability to her left leg. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- under the head loss of amenities and enjoyment of life, future
- 10 -
MFA No. 4129 of 2017earning capacity and food and nourishment and conveyance. Compensation awarded under the other heads remains undisturbed in terms of the award of the Tribunal. Thus, the claimant is entitled to compensation as under:
Sl.
Particulars Rs.
No.
1 Loss of amenities in life on Rs. 3,00,000/-
account of permanent
disability, earning capacity
and discomfort
2 Future medical expenses Rs. 25,000/-
3 Medical expenses, Rs. 46,818/-
conveyance, and other
heads
Total Rs. 3,71,818/-
14. Accordingly, the following Order is passed
i) Miscellaneous First Appeal is allowed in part.
ii) The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.3,71,818/- along with
- 11 -
MFA No. 4129 of 2017interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.
iii) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
iv) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith.
v) To the aforesaid extent, the judgment of the Claimant Tribunal is modified.
Sd/-
(DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE BNV