[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Mahesh S/O Ramesh vs Siddesh D.S. S/O Shivakumar H.B on 24 March, 2026

                                              -1-
                                                            NC: 2026:KHC:16538
                                                        M.F.A. No.2949/2020


                   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.2949/2020 (MV-I)


                   BETWEEN:

                   MAHESH S/O RAMESH
                   AGED 5 YEARS, MINOR
                   REP. BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN
                   FATHER RAMESH S/O HANUMANTHAPPA
Digitally signed   AGED 34 YEARS
by ARSHIFA         MASON WORK
BAHAR KHANAM       R/O HIREARAKERE VILLAGE
Location: HIGH     TQ. JAGALUR
COURT OF           NOW R/O YALEBETHUR VILLAGE
KARNATAKA
                   TQ. DIST. DAVANGERE 577001.

                                                                  ...APPELLANT
                   (BY SRI. R. SHASHIDHARA, ADV.,)


                   AND:

                   1.    SIDDESH D.S. S/O SHIVAKUMAR H.B.
                         AGED 29 YEARS
                         RIDER OF MOTOR CYCEL
                         BEARING NO.KA-17/EP-1807
                         R/O CHIKKAAREKERE VILLAGE
                         CHADARAGOLLA POST, DAVANAGERE
                         TALUK AND DSITRICT 577001.

                   2.    CHANNABASAPPA
                         S/O GURUSIDDAPPA
                         AGED 56 YEARS
                         OWNER OF MOTOR CYCLE
                         BEARING NO.KA-17/EP-1807
                                -2-
                                                NC: 2026:KHC:16538
                                              M.F.A. No.2949/2020


HC-KAR




     R/O CHIKKAAREKERE VILLAGE
     CHADARAGOLLA POST
     DAVANGERE TALUK AND
     DISTRICT 577001.

3.   THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
     NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD,
     NARADAMUNI PLAZA, DENTAL COLLEGE
     OPPOSITE MCC B BLOCK
     DAVANGERE 577001.

                                                   ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAVISH BENNI, ADV., FOR R3
V/O/DTD:16.02.2023 NOTICE TO R1 & R2 D/W)

     THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.04.2019 PASSED IN MVC
NO.766/2018    ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND V ADDITIONAL MACT, DAVANGERE, 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 VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

                      ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the injured appellant

challenging the judgment and award dated 29.04.2019

passed in MVC.No.766/2018 by the I Additional Senior

Civil Judge and V Additional MACT, Davangere, (for short

'the Tribunal').

NC: 2026:KHC:16538

HC-KAR

2. Though this appeal is listed for admission, with

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

taken up for final disposal.

3. Sri.R.Shashidhara, learned counsel appearing

for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has committed

a grave error in assessing the disability of the injured

minor at 10% and in awarding a meager compensation of

Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of loss of future earning due

to disability, by applying the principles laid down by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mallikarjun v.

Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company

Ltd. and Another1. It is submitted that in view of the

recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the injured

appellant is entitled to compensation under the head of

loss of future income due to disability by assessing the

minimum wages of the injured. Accordingly, he seeks to

2013 ACJ 2445

NC: 2026:KHC:16538

HC-KAR

reassess the same and enhance the compensation by

allowing the appeal.

4. Per contra, Sri.Ravish Benni, learned counsel

for respondent No.3 supports the impugned judgment and

award of the Tribunal and submits that the appellant was

aged about 4 years at the time of accident, hence there

cannot be any compensation under the head of loss of

future income due to disability. It is submitted that the

appellant has neither undergone any surgery nor suffered

any permanent disability. Taking these aspects into

consideration, the Tribunal has awarded a total

compensation of Rs.1,86,583/-, which is just and

reasonable and does not call for any interference.

Accordingly, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.

5. I have heard the arguments on both the sides

and meticulously perused the material available on record

including the Tribunal records.

NC: 2026:KHC:16538

HC-KAR

6. The parties to the proceedings do not dispute

that the appellant was aged about 4 years at the time of

the accident, which occurred on 19.12.2017. As per the

evidence available on record, the appellant sustained the

following injuries and fracture:

"i) Abrasion of 3 x 3 cms over right zygomatic area.

ii) 3 abrasions each 1 x 1 cm over right side of cheek, right side of forehead, over supra orbital region.

iii) Abrasion 1 x 1 cm over right medial malleolus region.

iv) Swelling and tenderness present over right thigh region.

v) 3 abrasion of 3 x 2 cm each over occipital, infroccipital of right temporal region.

vi) Multiple abrasion each 1 x 1 cm over dorsum of fingers.

On X-ray fracture of 1/3rd of soft of right femur."

7. In order to prove the claim, the father of the

minor examined himself as PW1 and also examined

Dr.Nandakumar as PW2 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P11.

The respondent did not adduce any oral evidence;

however, with the consent, got marked Ex.R1 to Ex.R3.

The Tribunal applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble

NC: 2026:KHC:16538

HC-KAR

Supreme Court in the case of Mallikarjun referred supra

assessed disability at 10% and awarded compensation of

Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of loss of future income due

to disability. In total, the Tribunal awarded compensation

of Rs.1,86,583/-.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari

and Another2 in paragraph Nos.9 and 15 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

2025 INSC 1070

NC: 2026:KHC:16538

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."

9. Keeping in mind the enunciation of law laid

down in the aforesaid decision, I am of the considered

view that this Court is required to assess the

compensation by taking into account the notional income

based on minimum wages of a minor, for the purpose of

determining compensation under the head of loss of future

income due to disability. The accident is of the year 2017,

hence, the notional income of the injured is assessed at

Rs.11,000/- per month, as per the notional income chart

(2020) 4 SCC 413

2024 SCC Online SC 3692

NC: 2026:KHC:16538

HC-KAR

prepared by KSLSA for unskilled labour. The Tribunal

taking note of the injuries sustained and the evidence of

PW2, has assessed the disability at 10%, which in my view

is just and proper. The medical evidence available on

record supports the said assessment. The Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision has applied a

multiplier of 18, wherein the deceased was aged about 8

years. Accordingly, it would be appropriate to apply the

multiplier of 18 to assess the compensation under the

head of loss of future income due to disability. Having

reassessed the income of the appellant/claimant, the

appellant/claimant is entitled to compensation under the

head of loss of future income due to disability as

under:

11,000 x 12 x 18 x 10% = Rs.2,37,600/-

10. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.9,583/-

towards medical bills, which is unaltered. However, taking

note of the oral and documentary evidence on record, I

NC: 2026:KHC:16538

HC-KAR

am of the considered view that the compensation awarded

by the Tribunal under other heads is required to be

reassessed by appropriately enhancing the same. The

appellant is entitled to the modified compensation as

under:

                       HEADS                       AMOUNT
                                                   (in Rs.)
    Pain & suffering                                    40,000
    Loss of amenities                                  40,000
    Medical Bills                                       9,583
    Loss of income to the parents during laid-up       33,000
    period of the appellant.
    (Rs.11,000 X 3)
    Loss of future income due to disability           2,37,600
    Towards conveyance, attendant charges,              20,000
    food and nourished food
                        Total                        3,80,183

Thus, the appellant-claimant shall be entitled to total

compensation of Rs.3,80,183/- as against Rs.1,86,583/-

awarded by the Tribunal.

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

following: