Karnataka High Court
Kumar Dareppa S/O. Shankar Chougale vs Jagadish S Mane on 10 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13726
MFA No. 101850 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101850 OF 2018 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
KUMAR DAREPPA
S/O. SHANKAR CHOUGULE,
AGE: 8 YEARS,
OCC: SINCE MINOR
REPRESENTED BY M/G FATHER
SHANKAR
S/O. IRAPPA CHOUGULE,
AGE: 37 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HINDALGA-591108,
TALUKA & DISTRICT-BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANT
GIRIJA A.
BYAHATTI (BY MISS. VINUTHA M. KHANNUR FOR
Digitally signed by
SRI. MADANMOHAN M. KHANNUR, ADVOCATES)
GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DHARWAD
AND:
1. JAGADISH S. MANE,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: SERVICE,
R/O. HOUSE NEAR BK 89,
COMPOUND NO.1,
ULLAS NAGAR,
DIST: THANE-400601,
STATE: MAHARASHTRA.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13726
MFA No. 101850 of 2018
HC-KAR
2. THE RELIANCE GENERAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
CTS NO.10719,
SRY NO.1357/A,
NEHARU NAGAR,
BELAGAVI-590001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SURESH S. GUNDI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1-NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 01.02.2018 PASSED IN M.V.C. NO.1155/2016
PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE IX-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI AND AWARD THE COMPENSATION AS
CLAIMED IN THE CLAIM PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY; PASS ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION
AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS JUST AND PROPER UNDER THE
FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE INCLUDING AWARD
OF COST, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13726
MFA No. 101850 of 2018
HC-KAR
CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
1. Heard Ms.Vinutha Khannur, who represents Sri.
Madanmohan M. Khannur, learned counsel on record
for the appellant as well as Sri. Suresh S. Gundi,
learned counsel for respondent No.2.
2. A boy aged around 6 years met with road traffic
accident that occurred in the year 2015. Claiming
compensation, he filed a petition. The Additional Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Belagavi, which entertained
the case as MVC No.1115/2016, passed orders on
01.02.2018 holding that the claimant is entitled to a
sum of Rs.1,26,162/- as compensation. Being
aggrieved by the award thus passed, the claimant filed
the present appeal seeking enhancement.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13726
HC-KAR
3. Arguing the matter, learned counsel for the appellant
submits that the appellant sustained fracture of right
femur and fracture of the left tibia and fibula. Learned
counsel submits that the appellant took treatment as
an inpatient for more than 20 days. Learned counsel
also states that the appellant produced the evidence of
PW2, who clearly stated that the disability in respect
of the right lower limb is 22% and in respect of the
left lower limb it is 18%. Learned counsel submits that
the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.1,26,162/- which
includes the medical expenditure incurred. Learned
counsel contends that the sum thus granted as
compensation is on the lower side and therefore, the
present appeal is filed.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other
hand, states that the compensation that is granted by
the Tribunal is just and reasonable. However, in light
of the submission that is made by learned counsel for
the appellant, there may be marginal enhancement.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13726
HC-KAR
5. By all the evidence produced, the appellant succeeded
in establishing that he took treatment as an inpatient
from 15.12.2015 to 07.01.2016. Also, as per the
evidence of PW2, the permanent physical disability in
respect of the right lower limb is 22% and in respect
of the left lower limb is 18%. Thus, the whole-body
disability can be considered to be a bit more than
10%.
6. In the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
between Master Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager,
National Insurance Company Ltd.,1 it was clearly held
that on assessment of disability, compensation is
required to be granted in a lump sum so far as minor
children are concerned. The Hon'ble Court at para 12
of the judgment held as follows:
"12. 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 the
(2014) 14 SCC 396
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13726
HC-KAR
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 lakhs; upto 60%, Rs.4 lakhs; upto 90%,
Rs.5 lakhs and above 90%, it should be Rs.6
lakhs. For permanent disability upto 10%, it
should be Re.1 lakh, unless there are
exceptional circumstances to take different
yardstick".
7. Therefore, considering the evidence produced and the
decision that is referred to supra, this Court is of the
view that it will be wholly just and reasonable in case
the appellant is awarded compensation of
Rs.2,00,000/- in toto. Therefore, the appeal is
disposed of with the following order:
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed in part.
ii. The compensation granted by the Additional Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Belagavi, through orders
in MVC No.1115/2016 dated 01.02.2018 is
enhanced from Rs.1,26,162/- to Rs.2,00,000/-.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13726
HC-KAR
iii. The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of
6% per annum from the date of petition till the date
of deposit.
iv. Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the
enhanced sum within a period of eight weeks from
the date of receipt of the certified copy of the
judgment.
v. The Tribunal is directed to invest the deposited
amount in any interest-yielding fixed deposit
scheme of any nationalized bank until the appellant
attains the age of majority.
vi. On attaining the age of majority, the appellant is
permitted to withdraw the entire amount.
Sd/-
(CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
gab
CT-MCK
