Karnataka High Court

Master Mohammed Althaf vs Mr Hasanabba Sheikh on 10 June, 2025

                                           -1-
                                                    NC: 2025:KHC:19561
                                                  MFA No. 1764 of 2013


              HC-KAR



                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                       DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

                                      BEFORE
                       THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
              MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1764 OF 2013(MV-I)

              BETWEEN:
              1.    MASTER MOHAMMED ALTHAF
                    @ ALTHAF
                    S/O AHMED BAVA
                    AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
                    R/AT AISHA MANZIL
                    SITE NO.181, 9TH BLOCK
                    KRISHNAPURA
                    MANGALORE TALUK-575 002.
                                                          ...APPELLANT
              (BY SRI. GURUPRASAD B.R., ADVOCATE)
              AND:

              1.    MR. HASANABBA SHEIKH
                    S/O K.K.SHEIKABBA
                    AGED 42 YEARS
Digitally
signed by H         R/AT H.A.MANZIL
K HEMA              NEAR MOSQUE, SHIRVA
Location:           MANCHAKALLU
HIGH                UDUPI TALUK-574 116.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
              2.    THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.
                    2ND FLOOR, SRI RAM ARCADE
                    H.P.ROAD, UDUPI
                    LOCAL OFFICE:DIVISIONAL OFFICE
                    2ND FLOOR, GANESH BAZAAR BUILDING
                    G.H.S.ROAD, MANGALORE TALUK
                    MANGALORE-575 001.
                                                      ...RESPONDENTS
              (VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 07.07.2015, NOTIC E TO R1 IS
              DISPENSED WITH;
              SRI. Y.K.SHESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
                              -2-
                                           NC: 2025:KHC:19561
                                        MFA No. 1764 of 2013


HC-KAR



     THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.08.2012 PASSED IN MVC
NO.172/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT AND III
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MANGALORE, D.K, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

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

CORAM:     HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

                     ORAL JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant against the

judgment and award dated 08.08.2021 passed in

M.V.C.No.172/2011 by the learned III Additional Senior Civil

Judge & Member, MACT, D.K., Mangaluru.

2. Brief facts of the case of the claimant are that, on

02.05.2010 the claimant was going on a motorcycle bearing

registration No.KA-19W-9066 as pillion rider and the deceased

Abdul Rahiman @ Abdulla was rider of the said vehicle. They

met with an accident on NH-17 of Haleyangadi village of

Mangalore Taluk due the rash and negligent driving of the bus

bearing registration No.KA-20B-1978 by its driver. As a result

of which, both sustained grievous injuries and the said Abdul

Rahiman succumbed to the injuries on the spot. The claimant

NC: 2025:KHC:19561

HC-KAR

was admitted to Unity Hospital, Mangalore and he had taken

treatment as an inpatient from 02.05.2010 to 12.05.2010 and

spent huge amount towards medical expenses. He was aged

about 16 years at the time of the accident and was earning

Rs.3,000/- per month. Due to the injuries sustained in the

accident, he had suffered permanent disability. With these

reasons, he prayed to award compensation.

3. Respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the

insurer of the offending bus. Respondent No.2 denied the

contents of the claim petition. It is further contended by the

insurer that the accident had taken place due to rash and

negligent driving of the rider of the motorcycle. It was also

contended that the claim petition has to be barred for non-

joinder of necessary parties. With these reasons, respondent

No.2 prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

4. It appears that MVC Nos.1396/2010 and 172/2011 were

clubbed together. Common evidence was recorded and

disposed of by a common judgment. Claimants in both the

cases together examined five witnesses as PWs.1 to 5 and

marked Exs.P1 to P21. Respondent No.2 has not led any oral

NC: 2025:KHC:19561

HC-KAR

evidence but marked one document Ex.R1. After hearing both

the parties and appreciating the evidence available on record,

the Tribunal held that the accident had taken place due to rash

and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. The Tribunal

assessed the age of the claimant as 13 to 15 years, assessed

his notional income as Rs.3,000/- p.m., applied multiplier 18

and assessed permanent disability as 5% to the whole body,

though the medial board had assessed the permanent disability

as 40% to the left lower limb and in all awarded compensation

of Rs.1,42,400/-.

5. The Tribunal has awarded the compensation amount

under the following heads:

a) Pain and Sufferings                             Rs.30,000/-
b) Medical Expenses                                Rs.75,000/-
c) Food, extra nourishment & attendant              Rs.4,000/-
   charges
d) Loss of future income due to disability         Rs.32,400/-
e) Conveyance charges                               Rs.1,000/-
     Total                                     Rs.1,42,400/-

                                             NC: 2025:KHC:19561



HC-KAR

6. The appellant having found the said compensation is

inadequate filed the present appeal for enhancement of

compensation.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the

amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on lower

side. Considering the information given by the medical board,

the Tribunal ought to have assessed permanent disability to an

extent of 15% to the whole body instead of 5%. The claimant

has produced the medical bills worth Rs.1,24,541/- as per

Ex.P21. PW.3 is father of the claimant. He was an illiterate,

therefore he was not able to answer in respect of certain

medical bills. Considering the same, the Tribunal awarded

Rs.75,000/- towards medical expenses. When the receipts are

placed on record, the Tribunal ought to have accepted the

same and awarded the just compensation. He further

contended that the income of the claimant assessed by the

Tribunal is on lower side. Even if the notional income is

accepted as per the chart prepared by Karnataka State Legal

Services Authority, it would be Rs.5,500/- p.m. He further

contended that the other amount of compensation awarded is

NC: 2025:KHC:19561

HC-KAR

meagre and no amount of compensation is awarded towards

loss of amenities. Therefore, he prays for enhancement of

compensation.

8. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently

contended that the Tribunal has properly appreciated the

material on record and awarded just and reasonable amount of

compensation. In the impugned judgment, the Tribunal has

given justifiable reason for awarding the said amount of

compensation. It is the case of claimant that he was working

with deceased Abdul Rahiman in mango plucking while also

pursuing his studies, and was earning Rs.3,000/- p.m.

Therefore, the respondents cannot now contend that, as per

the chart prepared by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority,

the claimant's notional income was Rs.5,500/- p.m. Such a

contention is not permissible. He further contended that though

medical receipts are produced, they were not believable as the

amount of medical expenses was exorbitant. Even the disability

given by the medical board is also exorbitant. Therefore, no

justifiable reason for interfering with the judgment and award

of the Tribunal and thereby prays for dismissal of the appeal.

NC: 2025:KHC:19561

HC-KAR

9. Learned counsel for the appellant in reply submits that

claimant was aged about 15 to 16 years at the time of accident.

As per the medical board, he has been suffering from

permanent disability to an extent of 40%. Even 1/3rd of the

same is taken as disability to whole body, then it will be more

than 10%. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Master

Mallikarjun Vs. Divisional Manager, the National Insurance

Company Limited & Another1 held that in such cases, in

addition to actual medical bill the global compensation of

Rs.3,00,000/- shall be awarded. The principle of law awarded

in the said case is applicable to facts of the present case and on

the basis of the same, compensation be awarded at the rate of

Rs.3,00,000/- along with medical expenses of Rs.1,24,541/-.

10. Learned counsel for the insurance company submits that

the law laid down in the said judgment is not applicable to the

facts of the present case and on that basis, compensation need

not be enhanced.

2014(14)SCC 396

NC: 2025:KHC:19561

HC-KAR

11. The only question that arises for my consideration is as

under;

"Whether the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation?"

12. Undisputedly, the claimant sustained injuries in a vehicle

accident. According to the material on records which is

discussed in the impugned judgment, the claimant was

studying in SSLC/10th Std. He has produced Ex.P19 which

discloses that he was aged about 16 years at the time accident.

Ex.P17 is given by Disability Board of Government Wenlock

Hospital, Mangalore, indicates that the claimant had suffered

permanent disability of 40% to the left lower limb. Considering

the said disability stated by PW.5, disability to the whole body

could be considered at 10%.

13. Claimant was admittedly minor at the time of accident.

Therefore, the law laid down in the case of Master Mallikarjun

(referred supra) by the Hon'ble Apex Court could made

applicable to the present case and global compensation of

Rs.3,00,000/- to be awarded on all the heads except medical

expenses.

NC: 2025:KHC:19561

HC-KAR

14. The Tribunal after detailed discussions disbelieved the

amount of Rs.24,000/- spent towards medical expenses. Even

if it is deducted, admissible amount must to be Rs.1,00,000/-,

the same could be awarded to the claimant. Accordingly, the

claimant is entitled for Rs.3,00,000/- towards global

compensation and in addition to that Rs.1,00,000/- towards

medical expenses, totally Rs.4,00,000/- and hence, the

claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation of

Rs.2,57,600/- rounded off to Rs.2,58,000/-. Undisputedly,

respondent No.2 is liable to pay the said amount of

compensation.

15. The claimant is also entitled for interest at the rate of 6%

per annum on the enhanced compensation.

16. The Tribunal without any justifiable reason denied the

interest on Rs.32,400/- which is awarded towards loss of future

earning capacity due to disability. The reason assigned by the

Tribunal is not proper and justifiable. The claimant is entitled

for interest on the said amount of compensation awarded by

the Tribunal. For the aforesaid discussions, I answer the above

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:19561

HC-KAR

question partly in the affirmative and proceed to pass the

following:

ORDER

i. The appeal is allowed in part;

ii. The impugned judgment and award dated

08.08.2012 passed in MVC No.172/2011 on the file

of III Addl. Senior Civil Judge & Member, MACT,

Mangalore, D.K. is modified;

iii. The claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation

of Rs.2,58,000/- with interest at the rate of 6%

p.a. on the enhanced amount of compensation

from the date of petition till its realization;

iv. The claimant is also entitled for interest at the rate

of 6% p.a. on the compensation amount of

Rs.32,400/- which was awarded by the Tribunal

towards loss of future earning capacity due to

disability from the date of petition till its

realization;

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:19561