[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Master Prajwal vs Sri. Mahesh K. C on 13 March, 2026

                                              -1-
                                                            NC: 2026:KHC:15032
                                                          M.F.A. No.9829/2018


                   HC-KAR




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                            DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
                                            BEFORE
                         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
                    MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.9829/2018 (MV-I)


                   BETWEEN:

                   MASTER PRAJWAL
                   S/O SRI. MAHESH
                   AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS
                   OCC:STUDENT
                   SINCE MINOR REPT BY HIS FATHER
                   & NATURAL GUARDIAN
Digitally signed   SRI. MAHESH
by ARSHIFA         S/O SRI. RAMEGOWDA
BAHAR KHANAM       AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
Location: HIGH     OCC:EMPLOYEE AT HIGHWAY COMPANY
COURT OF           R/AT NO.42, 5TH C CROSS
KARNATAKA          3RD MAIN, GIRINAGAR
                   BENGALURU-560085.

                                                                  ...APPELLANT
                   (BY SRI. SURESH M. LATUR, ADV.,)


                   AND:

                   1.    SRI. MAHESH K.C.
                         S/O SRI. CHANDREGOWDA K.M.
                         R/AT NO.65, KENCHAPPA BUILDING
                         IST FLOOR, GAJENDRANAGAR
                         GEF POST, AVALAHALLI
                         BENGALURU-560026.

                   2.    THE REGIONAL MANAGER
                         ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCD CO LTD.,
                         NO.89, 2ND FLOOR
                               -2-
                                           NC: 2026:KHC:15032
                                         M.F.A. No.9829/2018


HC-KAR




    S.V.R. COMPLEX, MADIWALA
    KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560068.

                                              ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.C. SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADV., FOR R2
V/O/DTD:09.03.2022 NOTICE TO R2 IS D/W)

     THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:01.09.2018 PASSED IN MVC
NO.6838/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL JUDGE,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU
(SCCH-14), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION      AND     SEEKING     ENHANCEMENT     OF
COMPENSATION.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

                         ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the minor injured appellant

challenging the judgment and award dated 01.09.2018

passed in MVC.No.6838/2017 by the MACT, Bengaluru,

(SCCH-14), (for short 'Tribunal').

2. Though this appeal is listed for orders, with the

consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it is taken

up for final disposal.

NC: 2026:KHC:15032

HC-KAR

3. Sri.Suresh M. Latur, learned counsel appearing

for the appellant submits that the appellant was a minor,

aged about 8 years, and sustained a right femur mid shaft

fracture and injury to right thigh. He was provided

treatment at Hosmat Hospital, Bengaluru as an inpatient

and underwent surgery. To substantiate the loss of

income, injuries suffered and disability, the father of the

appellant was examined and the treating doctor deposed

that the appellant has suffered 10% disability to the whole

body and 30% disability to a particular limb. However, the

Tribunal has awarded meager compensation on all heads.

It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a

catena of decisions, has held that in the case of a minor

suffering injuries in a road accident, the compensation is

required to be assessed under the head of loss of future

income due to disability by assessing minimum wages to

skilled labour and applying the appropriate multiplier as

per the second schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

(for short 'the Act'). In support of his contentions, he

NC: 2026:KHC:15032

HC-KAR

placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai

Nagjibhai Rabari and Another1 and in the case of V.

Mekala v. M. Malathi and Another2. It is further

submitted that the appellant is also entitled to the costs of

litigation. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal.

4. Per contra, Sri.B.C.Shivanne Gowda, learned

counsel appearing for respondent No.2 supports the

impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and

submits that the appellant is a minor. It is submitted that

the injuries suffered by the appellant have completely

healed, and therefore, the question of assessing the

disability and awarding compensation under the head of

loss of future income due to disability does not arise. It is

further submitted that the Tribunal taking note of the fact

that the injured was an inpatient for 2 days at Hosmat

Hospital, Bengaluru, has awarded just compensation on all

heads, which does not call for any enhancement. It is also

2025 INSC 1070 2 (2014) 11 SCC 178

NC: 2026:KHC:15032

HC-KAR

submitted that the judgments relied by the appellant's

counsel have no application to the facts of the case. In the

case of Hitesh referred supra, the injuries and disability

were more severe. Considering the said aspect, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed to assess the income

of the minor and awarded compensation and the said case

cannot be made applicable to the case on hand. It is

contended that compensation is required to be reassessed

on a case to case basis, by considering the evidence

before the Tribunal. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the

appeal.

5. I have heard the arguments on both the sides

and meticulously perused the material available on record.

6. The records indicate that the appellant was a

minor aged about 8 years, filed a claim petition under

Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation of

Rs.10,00,000/-. The material on record also indicates that

the minor appellant was walking on the extreme left side

of the road along with his father on 27.08.2017 at

NC: 2026:KHC:15032

HC-KAR

Avalahalli, Bengaluru. At that time, the rider of the

motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-05-JM-2980 drove the said

motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed

against the minor, resulting in grievous injuries and a

fracture. The appellant was immediately taken to

Prashanth Hospital, Bengaluru and thereafter, provided

treatment at Hosmat Hospital, Bengaluru. In order to

prove the claim, the father of the injured was examined as

PW1 and Dr.Krishna Prasad was examined as PW2 and got

marked Ex.P1 to P18. The respondent did not adduce any

evidence. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and

documentary evidence, awarded the following

compensation.

                        HEADS                       AMOUNT
                                                    (in Rs.)
    Pain & sufferings                                    15,000
    Nourishment, conveyance and attendant                 5,000
    charges
    Medical expenses                                    83,600
    Loss of amenities                                   50,000
    Loss of income to PW1 during the period of          16,000

taking treatment by minor petitioner Future medical expenses 20,000 Total 1,89,600

NC: 2026:KHC:15032

HC-KAR

7. It is not in dispute between the parties that the

appellant was a minor at the time of the accident and was

aged about 8 years. It is also not in dispute that he met

with a road accident on 27.08.2017, due to the actionable

negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle, and

the said vehicle was insured with the

respondent/insurance company. The records indicate that

the appellant was initially provided treatment at Prashanth

Hospital, Bengaluru and thereafter, shifted to Hosmat

Hospital, Bengaluru. As per Ex.P7, the wound certificate

and Ex.P8, the discharge summary and other medical

records, the appellant has sustained the following

fractures:

"1. Right femur mid shaft fracture.

2. Injury to right thigh."

8. The discharge summary indicates that the

appellant was treated as an inpatient for a period of 2

days i.e., 28.08.2017 and 29.08.2017 and underwent

nailing right femur. PW2, the doctor has deposed before

NC: 2026:KHC:15032

HC-KAR

the Tribunal that the injured appellant has complained

irritation due to implants inserted in his right lower limb

and he has further expressed difficulty in kneeling,

squatting, sitting cross-legged, climbing the staircase and

slopes. It is also deposed that the injured has stopped

playing and running. PW2 has clearly deposed before the

Tribunal that the appellant has suffered disability to the

extent of 30% to the left lower limb and 10% to the whole

body. Keeping the oral and documentary evidence in mind,

I am of the considered view that the compensation

awarded by the Tribunal is not just and fair, and required

to be reassessed by considering the law laid by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court referred supra.

9. It would be useful to extract the relevant

paragraphs of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in the case of Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel referred supra:

"15. For the purpose of emphasis, it is again clarified here that when a Tribunal or the High Court in appeal, is concerned with the case involving a child having suffered injury or having passed away, the calculation of loss of income

NC: 2026:KHC:15032

HC-KAR

necessarily has to be made on the matric of minimum wages payable to a skilled worker in the respective State at the relevant point of time. It is our hope that this restatement helps avoiding such errors and thereby obviates the necessity of this Court's interference, applying well-established principles of law.

18. In so far as the direction issued regarding the furnishing of the schedule of minimum wages by the insurance company in cases where the income of the claimant/deceased has not been properly established, let a copy of this order be sent by the Registrar Judicial of this Court to the learned Registrar Generals of the High Courts, who shall ensure that the a copy of this order is sent to all Motor Accident Claims Tribunals, to see that the direction is followed strictly."

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid

decision has held that the Tribunals and the High Courts

are required to assess the compensation in cases of

minors by taking into consideration the minimum wages

for skilled workers. Keeping in mind the aforesaid decision

and also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of V. Mekala referred supra, I am of the view that

the compensation awarded in the present case is required

to be reassessed.

- 10 -

NC: 2026:KHC:15032

HC-KAR

11. In the case on hand, the injured was a minor,

aged about 8 years. Hence, his income is required to be

notionally assessed by placing reliance on the notional

income chart prepared by the KSLSA for the respective

years from 2008 to 2022. As the case of an accident is of

the year 2017 and considering the said chart, the income

of the injured is assessed at Rs.11,000/-. Considering the

age of the appellant as 8 years and taking note of the

second schedule of the Act, the appropriate multiplier

would be 15. PW2 has deposed that the appellant minor

has sustained disability to the extent of 10% to the whole

body and the same disability is assessed for the award of

compensation. Hence, the compensation under the head of

loss of future income due to disability would be :

11,000 x 12 x 15 x 10% = Rs.1,98,000/-

12. The award of compensation under the heads of

medical expenses, future medical expenses, loss of

amenities and loss of income to PW1 during the period of

- 11 -

NC: 2026:KHC:15032

HC-KAR

taking treatment by minor appellant remains unaltered.

Having assessed the income and disability of the

appellant, considering the nature of injuries suffered and

the treatment provided to the appellant, I am of the

considered view that the compensation under the other

heads is required to be reassessed appropriately. The

appellant is entitled to the modified compensation as

under:

                       HEADS                          AMOUNT
                                                      (in Rs.)
    Pain & suffering                                       40,000
    Loss of amenities                                        50,000
    Medical expenses                                         83,600
    Loss of income to PW1 during the period of               16,000

taking treatment by minor appellant

Loss of future income due to disability 1,98,000 Towards conveyance, attendant charges, 15,000 food and nourished food Future medical expenses 20,000 Total 4,22,600

Thus, the appellant-claimant shall be entitled to total

compensation of Rs.4,22,600/- as against Rs.1,89,600/-

awarded by the Tribunal.

- 12 -

NC: 2026:KHC:15032

HC-KAR

13. The contention of the learned counsel for the

appellant that he is entitled to the cost of litigation cannot

be accepted. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence

on record, disposed of the appeal in the year 2008 in

respect of the accident that occurred in 2007. The present

appeal is being disposed of in 2026. There has been no

delay or lapse on the part of the insurance company in the

conduct of the proceedings. Accordingly, the said

contention is rejected.

14. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the

following:

ORDER

a) Appeal stands allowed in part.

b) The impugned judgment and award of the

Tribunal is modified to an extent that the

appellant-claimant would be entitled to

total compensation of Rs.4,22,600/- as

against Rs.1,89,600/- awarded by the

Tribunal.

- 13 -

NC: 2026:KHC:15032

HC-KAR

c) The enhanced compensation amount shall

carry interest at the rate of 6% per

annum from the date of petition till the

date of payment.

d) The Insurance Company shall deposit the

enhanced compensation amount with

accrued interest before the Tribunal within

a period of six weeks from the date of

receipt of certified copy of this judgment.