[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Kumari.Yasmeen D/O Ibrahimsab Dharwad vs Basavaraj S/O Patreppa Benakatti on 10 March, 2026
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3791
MFA No. 103646 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103646 OF 2015 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
KUMARI YASMEEN D/O IBRAHIMSAB DHARWAD,
AGE: 11 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT (NOW NIL),
R/O: YAKKERI, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY
M/G NATURAL FATHER IBRAHIMSAB PEERSAB DHARWAD,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRL.,
R/O: YAKKERI, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. SHAILA BELLIKATTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. BASAVARAJ S/O PATREPPA BENAKATTI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: SHIRASANGI, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
(OWNER OF BAJAJ PLATINA MOTOR CYCLE
BEARING REG NO.KA-24/L-5633)
2. THE MANAGER,
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY THROUGH BRANCH
CHANDRASHEKAR
MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
BELAGAVI.
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
Location: High Court of
...RESPONDENTS
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2026.03.11 09:47:09
+0000
(BY SRI MY KATAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND MODIFY THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD BY ENHANCING COMPENSATION IN MVC
NO.150/2014 DATED 29.02.2015 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE ADDITIONAL MACT SAUNDATTI UNDER ALL
PERMISSIBLE HEADS.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3791
MFA No. 103646 of 2015
HC-KAR
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 29.05.2015 passed
by Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Saundatti (for short,
'Tribunal') in MVC no.150/2014, this appeal is filed.
2. Smt.Shaila Bellikatti, learned counsel for appellant
submitted that on 11.07.2012, Kumari Yasmeen, a student aged
10 years was standing by Naragund - Munuvalli road, when rider
of motorcycle no.KA-24/L-5633 rode it in rash and negligent
manner and dashed against claimant causing accident. In
accident, she sustained grievous injuries and despite treatment
at Nimra Hospital, Gokak, did not recover fully. Claiming
compensation, claim petition was filed through her father under
Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against owner and
insurer of motorcycle.
3. On contest, wherein claim petition was opposed on
all counts, Tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence.
Claimant's father deposed as PW1 along with Dr.B.A.Matte as
PW2. Exhibits P1 to P14 were got marked. Respondents did not
lead evidence.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3791
HC-KAR
4. On consideration, Tribunal held accident had occurred
due to rash and negligence of riding of motorcycle by its rider,
motorcycle was duly insured and therefore, claimant was entitled
for compensation of ₹78,200/- from insurer under following
heads.
1. Towards pain and suffering Rs.30,000-00
2. Towards attendant charges Rs.5,000-00
3. Towards food and nutrition Rs.10,000-00
4. Towards transportation Rs.10,000-00
5. Towards Medical expenses Rs.23,235-00
Total Rs.78,235-00
5. Dissatisfied with same, appeal was filed.
6. It was firstly submitted, claimant was a minor aged
10 years who sustained fracture of left tibia and fibula. PW2 who
issued Ex.P8 - disability certificate assessed disability at 40% in
respect of affected limb. However, he did not assess whole body
disability. Considering same, Tribunal ought to have assessed
compensation by following ratio laid on by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in case of Master Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager,
the National Insurance Company Limited & Anr, reported in
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3791
HC-KAR
(2014) 14 SCC 396, failure had resulted in inadequate award
and sought enhancement.
7. On other hand, Sri MY Katagi, learned counsel for
respondent no.2 - insurer opposed appeal. It was contended,
PW2 - doctor had opined about union of fracture and in view of
same, possibility of exaggeration of disability was high. It was
further submitted, accident occurred on 11.07.2012 and in cross-
examination, PW2 admitted that there were no records to show
treatment from 28.11.2012 till 06.09.2014. Moreover, PW2 also
admitted that extent of disability would gradually reduce, since
injured was a minor and bones would grow with age. On said
ground opposed claim petition.
8. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned
judgment and award.
9. From above and since only claimant is in appeal,
point that would arise for consideration is:
'Whether claimant is entitled for enhancement
of compensation as prayed?
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3791
HC-KAR
10. At outset, there is no dispute about occurrence of
accident on 11.07.2012 involving insured vehicle resulting in
fracture of left tibia and fibula of claimant. Admittedly, claimant
was a minor student. In case of minors with no earning capacity,
Hon'ble Supreme Court has evolved structure formula for award
of compensation. On establishing disability, claimant would be
entitled for compensation slab-wise apart from money spent
towards medical and incidental expenses. In instant case,
claimant has produced Ex.P5 - wound certificate, Ex.P7 -
discharge summary and Ex.P8 - disability certificate apart from
prescriptions, medical bills, x-rays, outpatient card etc. PW2 has
assessed disability of 40% to affected limb. It is seen treatment
records would indicate inpatient treatment for 21 days. Ex.P8 -
disability certificate would reveal, doctor noting restriction of
flexion of knee to be limited to 80° (approximately 50%).
Likewise, for restriction of ankle movement by 10° to 20° plantar
flexion is noticed to assess 25% disability. Though learned
counsel for insurer would be justified in stating that such
assessment would require moderation, while assessing whole
body disability, it can safely be presumed that disability in any
case would not be more than 10% but less than 30%. In which
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3791
HC-KAR
case, claimant would be entitled for compensation under second
slab as per Master Mallikarjun's case i.e. lump sum of
₹3,00,000/- towards pain and suffering, loss of amenities etc.
11. Apart from above as claimant has produced medical
bills for ₹23,235/- and awarded by Tribunal is sustained. Award
of ₹10,000/- towards food and nutrition and ₹5,000/- towards
attendance is also sustained as compensation towards incidental
expenses. Without specific material, Tribunal awarded ₹10,000/-
towards transportation. Same is therefore held unsustainable.
Thus, total compensation would be ₹3,38,235/-. Claimant is
held entitled for same. Consequently, point for consideration is
answered 'partly in affirmative'. Accordingly, following:
ORDER
i. Appeal is allowed in part.
ii. Claimant is held entitled for total
compensation of ₹3,38,235/- as against
₹78,235/- awarded by Tribunal. Same shall
carry interest at 6% per annum from date of
petition till deposit.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3791
HC-KAR
iii. Insurer is directed to deposit same before
Tribunal within a period of six weeks.
iv. On deposit, 50% of same is ordered to be
released in favour of claimant and remaining
50% is directed to be kept in fixed deposit in a
nationalized bank for a period of 5 years with
option to seek for release in case same is
needed for marriage or for higher education.
Sd/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI)
JUDGE
CLK
CT:VP
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 18
