- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3590 MFA No. 201450 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 201027 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201450 OF 2018 (MV-I) C/W MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201027 OF 2018(MV-I) IN M.F.A.NO.201450/2018 BETWEEN: RAVI S/O SWAMI GOLLAR, AGE: 16 YEARS (MINOR), OCC: STUDENT, THROUGH HIS MINOR GUARDIAN, NATURAL FATHER BY NAME SWAMI S/O DALIBA GOLLAR, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: TALIKOTI, TQ: MUDDEBIHAL, DIST: VIJAYAPUR – 586 101 …APPELLANT (BY SRI GOPALKRISHNA B.YADAV, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. CHANDASAB S/O BASHASAB AKKALAKOTE, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: TIPPUSULTAN CIRCLE, MUDDEBIHAL, DIST: VIJAYAPURA – 586 101. Digitally signed by NIJAMUDDIN JAMKHANDI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3590 MFA No. 201450 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 201027 of 2018 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, HERELAGI BUILDING, BEHIND SIDDESHWAR TEMPLE VIJAYAPURA, POLICY NO.604004/31/11/6700005963 PERIOD:17.03.2012 TO 16.03.2013 – 586 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL, THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.03.2018 IN MVC NO.28/2014 PASSED BY SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT-VIII AT MUDDEBIHAL, MAY KINDLY BE MODIFIED BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION AS CLAIMED IN THE CLAIM PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. IN M.F.A.NO.201027/2018 BETWEEN: THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, HERELAGI BUILDING, BEHIND SIDDESHWAR TEMPLE, VIJAYAPURA – 586 101. THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER. AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY. …APPELLANT (BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RAVI S/O SWAMI GOLLAR, AGE: 16 YEARS MINOR, THROUGH HIS MINOR GUARDIAN, NATURAL FATHER BY NAME SWAMI S/O DALIBA GOLLAR, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: TALIKOTI, TQ: MUDDEBIHAL, DIST: VIJAYAPURA – 586 101. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3590 MFA No. 201450 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 201027 of 2018 2. CHANDASAB S/O BASHASAB AKKALAKOTE, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: TIPPU SULTAN CIRCLE, MUDDEBIHAL, DIST: VIJAYAPURA – 586 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI GOPALKRISHNA B. YADAV, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.03.2018 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT-VIII MUDDEBIHAL, IN M.V.C.NO.28/2014 BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AS PRAYED FOR IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THESE MFA’S, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL JUDGMENT Challenging judgment and award dated 15.03.2018 passed by Senior Civil Judge and MACT-VIII, Muddebihal in MVC no.28/2014, these appeals are filed. While MFA no.201450/2018 is filed by claimant for enhancement, MFA no.201027/2018 is filed by insurer challenging quantum. 2. Sri Manavendra Reddy, learned counsel submitted that appeal was by insurer challenging award insofar as compensation towards pain and suffering and loss of amenities - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3590 MFA No. 201450 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 201027 of 2018 as being contrary to law. It was submitted, as per claimants, on 03.04.2012, at about 12:30 p.m., minor Ravi, aged 12 years, was riding pillion with one Kashinath on motorcycle bearing no.KA-28/V-6610. When they were near Doni bridge on Talikoti-Vijayapura road, driver of Maxi Cab bearing no.KA- 28/5575 drove it in a rash and negligent manner and hit motorcycle, resulting in accident. As result, minor claimant and rider sustained grievous injuries. Despite treatment, minor sustained permanent physical disability and loss of future earning capacity. Accordingly, claim petitions were filed in MVC nos.28/2014 and 26/2014 by minor and rider respectively. Both were clubbed and tried together. 3. On service of notice, owner denied occurrence of accident, age, occupation, income and disability. However, it was stated, driver was holding valid driving license and vehicle was duly insured with insurer. Insurer opposed claim petition not only contending that claim in excessive, but also on ground of contributory negligence on rider of motorcycle and alleging violation of policy conditions. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3590 MFA No. 201450 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 201027 of 2018 4. Based on pleadings, tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence. Kashinath, father of claimant and doctor were examined as PWs,1 to 3 and documents were marked as Exs.P-1 to P-22. The insurer examined its official as RW-1 and marked insurance policy as Ex.R-1. 5. On appreciation of evidence, tribunal held that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Maxi Cab by its driver and awarded compensation from insurer as follows: Sl.No. Heads Amount 1 Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/- 2 Traveling, nourishment and attendant charges Rs.5,000/- 3 Medical expenses Rs.14,000/- 4 Loss of amenities Rs.5,000/- 5 Loss of earning capacity due to disablement Rs.1,00,000/- Total Rs.1,74,000/- 6. Dissatisfied with assessment insurer was in appeal. 7. It was submitted, admittedly claimant in MVC no.28/2014 was a boy ages 12 years. He sustained fractural injures, assessed by PW-3 at 10% permanent physical disability. Taking note of ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3590 MFA No. 201450 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 201027 of 2018 Court in case of Master Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2014) 14 SCC 396] tribunal awarded Rs.1,00,000/- under first slab. Apart from lump sum compensation, tribunal could have granted medical expenses and other incidental expenses etc., but it could not have granted compensation towards pain and suffering or loss of amenities. Hence, prayed for reduction. 8. On other hand, Sri Gopalkrishna B Yadav, learned counsel for claimant opposed insurer’s appeal as being devoid of merits. It was submitted, assessment of compensation by tribunal was on lower side and sought enhancement. It was submitted compensation of Rs.5,000/- each towards loss of amenities and traveling and other expenses was also on lower side. Even when minor were inpatient for 10 days, there is no award under head of loss of income of parents during treatment period. On said grounds, sought enhancement. 9. Heard counsel and perused impugned judgment and award. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3590 MFA No. 201450 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 201027 of 2018 10. From above, since both claimant as well as insurer are in appeal against assessment of tribunal on quantum, point that would arise for consideration is: “Whether assessment of compensation by tribunal calls for interference?” 11. Said point is answered in negative for following reasons. 12. As per ration in Master Mallikarjun (supra), there was no justification by tribunal to award Rs.50,000/- and Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering and loss of amenities respectively. At same time, award towards nourishment and other incidental expenses at Rs.5,000/- would be grossly inadequate. Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of income of parents during period of treatment i.e. three months, as claimant sustained fractural injuries. Notional income for year 2012 was Rs.6,500/-, it would be Rs.19,500/- in case of each parent. This would affect scope for reduction in insurers appeal. Thus, I do not find justification to interfere with impugned award. 13. Accordingly, following: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3590 MFA No. 201450 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 201027 of 2018 ORDER Both appeals are dismissed. Registry is directed to forthwith transmit amount in deposit in insurer’s appeal to tribunal for payment. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE NJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59