[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Kumar Vijeth A Kumar vs Sri. M.R. Venkatesh on 24 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:16803
M.F.A. No.1549/2020
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1549/2020 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
KUMAR VIJETH A. KUMAR
S/O ARUNKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS.
REP. BY NATURAL GUARDIAN
Digitally signed AND FATHER SRI. R. ARUNKUMAR
by ARSHIFA S/O A. RAMAIAH
BAHAR KHANAM
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
Location: HIGH
COURT OF R/AT.NO.2, SUMA MANSION
KARNATAKA ACHARYA COLLEGE ROAD
VINAYAKANAGAR
CHIKKABANAVARA
BENGALURU-560090.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. BHANU PRAKASH H.V. ADV.,)
AND:
1. SRI. M.R. VENKATESH
S/O RAMACHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/AT H.NO.77, PIPELINE ROAD
GANAPATHINAGARA
CHIKKABANAVARA
BENGALURU-560090
(RC OWNER - CUM DRIVER OF AUTO
RICKSHAW BEARING NO.KA-53-3793).
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:16803
M.F.A. No.1549/2020
HC-KAR
2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
POLICY ISSUED AT NO.27/A, 2ND FLOOR
THANGAVELU BUILDING
NEAR INDIAN BANK
JALAHALLI CROSS
BENGALURU-560057
(INSURANCE POLICY CERTIFICATE
NO.0723813116P101255706
VALID FROM 27.04.2016 TO 26.04.2017)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. D. VIJAYAKUMAR, ADV., FOR R2
V/O/DTD:16.11.2023, NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.23.10.2018 PASSED IN MVC
NO.724/2017 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 FURTHER ORDERS, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:16803
M.F.A. No.1549/2020
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the injured/claimant seeking
enhancement of compensation being aggrieved by the
judgment and award dated 23.10.2018 passed in
MVC.No.724/2017 by the XVI Additional Judge, Court of
Small Causes and Member, MACT, Bengaluru, (for short,
'Tribunal').
2. Sri.Bhanu Prakash H.V., learned counsel for the
appellant submits that the appellant, who was aged about
13 years at the time of accident, sustained grievous
injuries and he was provided treatment as an in-patient
for 23 days and the Tribunal considering the evidence on
record assessed the disability at 40% and applied the
principles laid down in the case of Master Mallikarjurn v.
Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. and
another1 and awarded meager compensation. He further
submits that the appellant minor is entitled to
ILR 2013 KAR 4891
NC: 2026:KHC:16803
HC-KAR
compensation under the loss of future income due to
disability by assessing his wages as per the law laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh
Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari and
Another2. Hence, he seeks to re-assess the compensation
by allowing the appeal.
3. Per contra, Sri.D.Vijayakumar, learned counsel
for the respondent No.2-Insurance Company supports the
impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and
submits that the assessment of the disability by the doctor
is to a particular limb and not to the whole body, hence,
the disability is required to be assessed at 10%. It is
submitted that the appellant, being a minor, there is no
evidence on record to show that he has lost the
educational prospects, etc. Hence, there cannot be any
compensation towards the loss of future income due to
disability. It is further submitted that the award of
compensation by the Tribunal is just and fair and there is
2025 ACJ 1986
NC: 2026:KHC:16803
HC-KAR
no scope for enhancement. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the
same.
4. I have heard the arguments of the learned
counsel appearing on both the sides and meticulously
perused the material available on record.
5. The appellant is a minor, who was aged about
13 years as on the date of accident i.e., on 02.11.2016.
The appellant met with an accident and sustained grievous
injury of deep wound degloving with exposed joint bones
over left elbow region and multiple abrasions and he
underwent surgery on 03.11.2016. The appellant was in-
patient in the hospital from 02.11.2016 to 16.11.2016 and
again re-admitted on 06.12.2016 to 13.12.2016 totally for
a period of 23 days. The appellant examined himself and
deposed before the Tribunal as PW1 and Dr.Sudhir B.M.
was examined as PW2. The appellant got marked the
documents as per Exs.P1 to P14. The respondents did not
adduce any evidence. The Tribunal applying the ratio laid
NC: 2026:KHC:16803
HC-KAR
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Mallikarjurn referred supra, assessed the disability at 10%
and awarded total compensation of Rs.4,43,000/- along
with the interest at the rate of 7% per annum by directing
the respondent-Insurance Company to make good of the
same.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of
Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel referred supra, at para Nos.9 and
15 has held as under:
"9. The aspect of monthly income of the minor
appellant, we are inclined to interfere with the
judgment and order of the Courts below. In the
present case, it is evident that the Courts below
have failed to take into account the monthly
income of the appellant while determining the
quantum of compensation. It is now a well-
entrenched and consistently reiterated principle of
law that a minor child who suffers death or
permanent disability in a motor vehicle accident,
cannot be placed in the same category as a non-
earning individual for the purposes of assessing
the amount of compensation because the child
was not engaged in gainful employment at the
time of the accident. In such a case, the
computation of compensation under the head of
loss of income ought to be made by adopting, at
the very least, the minimum wages payable to a
skilled workman as notified for the relevant period
in the respective State where the cause of action
arises. The said observation was rendered by this
NC: 2026:KHC:16803
HC-KAR
Court, in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and Ors3 , and
Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and
Anr4
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
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."
7. Keeping in mind the enunciation of law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred supra, I am
of the considered view that the income of the minor is
required to be assessed by considering the minimum
wages for the relevant year. In the case on hand, the
accident is of the year 2016, hence, the income is required
to be assessed at Rs.9,500/- per month placing reliance on
the notional income chart prepared by KSLSA. The
Tribunal taking note of the oral evidence of PW2-Doctor
(2020) 4 SCC 413
2024 SCC Online SC 3692
NC: 2026:KHC:16803
HC-KAR
and other medical evidence on record and by considering
the injuries suffered and treatment provided to the
appellant, assessed the disability at 10% which is in
consonance with the evidence on record, and the same
does not call for any modification.
8. Having re-assessed the income and considering
the disability, the compensation under the head of loss of
future income due to disability is re-assessed as under:
Rs.9500 x 12 x 18 x 10% = Rs.2,05,200/-.
9. Having re-assessed the income and disability
and considering the fact that the appellant was in-patient
for 23 days and provided treatment, I am of the
considered view that the compensation awarded under
other heads is also required to be enhanced appropriately.
Hence, the appellant would be entitled to compensation of
Rs.60,000/- towards pain & suffering; Rs.30,000/-
towards food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant
charges; Rs.60,000/- towards loss of amenities in life;
NC: 2026:KHC:16803
HC-KAR
and a compensation of Rs.28,500/- (Rs.9,500 X 3) is
awarded towards the loss of income of the father of the
minor injured during the treatment period. The
compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards medical
expenses is unaltered. Thus, the appellant would be
entitled to modified compensation as under:
HEADS AMOUNT
(in Rs.)
Loss of future income due to disability 2,05,200
Pain & suffering 60,000
Food, nourishment, conveyance and 30,000
attendant charges
Medical expenses 69,000
Loss of amenities in life 60,000
Loss of income of the father of appellant- 28,500
injured during treatment period
Total 4,52,700
Thus, the appellant-claimant shall be entitled to a
total compensation of Rs.4,52,700/- as against
Rs.4,43,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
10. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:16803
HC-KAR
ORDER
a) Appeal is 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 a
total compensation of Rs.4,52,700/- as
against Rs.4,43,000/- awarded by the
Tribunal.
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 excluding the interest for
the delayed period of 326 days as per the
order dated 24.03.2026.
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.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:16803
HC-KAR
e) The entire compensation amount shall be
released in favour of the appellant-
claimant.
f) Draw modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
BSR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5
