- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3654 MFA No. 201745 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201745 OF 2019 (MV-I) BETWEEN: VIKRAM S/O PANDURANG, AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: PIGMY COLLECTOR, R/O: H.NO.10, TILAK NAGAR, KUSNOOR ROAD, KALABURAGI – 585 101. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. SHIVALEELA S. SAJJANSHETTY AND SRI B.B.ASHTAGI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MOHAN S/O CHANDULAL PAWAR, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK, R/O: H.NO.71, SHANTINAGAR, NEAR HANUMAN TEMPLE, KHB COLONY, KALABURAGI – 585 101. 2. PANDU S/O MOMALU KUMBALA NAIK RATHOD AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF VEHICLE, R/O: H.NO.10, NEAR KOLHAPUR MAHALAXMI TEMPLE, TILAK NAGAR, KUSNOOR ROAD, KALABURAGI – 585 101. 3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., DRO. JWALI COMPLEX, SUPER MARKET, GULBARGA TQ: DIST: KALABURAGI – 585 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE FOR R3; NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 IS DISPENSED WITH) Digitally signed by NIJAMUDDIN JAMKHANDI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3654 MFA No. 201745 of 2019 THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.07.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.672/2011 BY II-ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT AT KALABURAGI AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO MODIFY THE AWARD AND ENHANCE THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION PAYABLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE ALONG WITH 9% INTEREST FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL PAYMENT. THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL JUDGMENT Though appeal is listed for admission, with consent of learned counsel for parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 2. Challenging judgment and award dated 01.07.2015 passed by II-Additional Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kalaburagi, (for short, ‘Tribunal’) in MVC no.672/2011, this appeal is filed. 3. Smt.Shivaleela S.Sajjanshetty, learned counsel for Sri SS Sajjanshetty, learned counsel submitted, appeal was by claimant for enhancement of compensation. It was submitted, at 4:20 p.m. on 24.07.2010, when claimant was walking by side of Kolhapur Mahalaxmi Temple road, Kalaburagi, rider of motorcycle no.KA-32/U.5656 rode it in rash and negligent manner and dashed against claimant from behind causing - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3654 MFA No. 201745 of 2019 accident. Due to same, claimant sustained fractural injuries. Despite treatment at various hospitals, he did not recover fully and sustained permanent physical disability and loss of earning capacity. Therefore, he filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, against owner, rider and insurer of motorcycle. 4. On contest, wherein, respondents opposed claim petition on all counts including alleging violation of terms and conditions of policy, tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence. Guardian of claimant was examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9. Respondents did not lead any evidence. 5. On consideration, Tribunal held accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of insured motorcycle by its rider, claimant sustained permanent physical disability and entitled for compensation from insurer as follows: Sl.No. Heads Amount 1 Pain and suffering Rs.20,000/- 2 Medical expenses Rs.25,000/- 3 Loss of amenities Rs.10,000/- Total Rs.55,000/- - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3654 MFA No. 201745 of 2019 6. Dissatisfied with same, claimant was in appeal. It was submitted, as per Ex.P6 – wound certificate, claimant was a minor aged 15 years (as on date of accident) sustained fracture of lateral 1/3rd of left clavicle and medical bills/prescriptions corroborate same. Despite same, tribunal did not award proper compensation as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Master Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and Anr. reported in AIR 2014 SC 736. On said ground, sought enhancement. 7. On other hand, Smt.Preeti Patil Melkundi, learned counsel for insurer opposed appeal. It was submitted, claimant failed to examine any doctor to substantiate disability. In absence, tribunal had awarded Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.25,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities. Therefore, same would not call for any enhancement. 8. Heard learned counsel. Perused impugned judgment and award. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3654 MFA No. 201745 of 2019 9. From above since only claimant is in appeal for enhancement of compensation, point that would arise for consideration is: “Whether claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation as sought for?” 10. Same is answered partly in affirmative for following reasons. 11. Medical records as well as police investigation records would indicate that claimant was minor aged 15 years, at time of accident. Treatment records as well as Ex.P6 - wound certificate would indicate claimant had sustained fracture of left clavicle. In case of personal injury claims by minors, Hon’ble Supreme Court has devised structured formula for award of compensation in Master Mallikarjun’s case (supra). Merely on ground that claimant did not examine Doctor, it would not be appropriate to deny just compensation when treatment records i.e., wound certificate at Ex.P6 issued by District Hospital, Kalaburagi and medical bills, prescriptions etc., at Exs.P8 and P9 corroborate claimant sustaining fractural injury. Any injury leading to disability upto 10% would qualify for compensation - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3654 MFA No. 201745 of 2019 under first slab for Rs.1,00,000/-. Taking note of fracture sustained to left clavicle, it would be reasonable to presume that disability caused would not be more than 10%. Therefore, claimant would be entitled for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- in lumpsum under structured formula. 12. It is seen, Exs.P8 and P9 are medical bills and prescriptions. Though tribunal disbelieved same, it awarded Rs.25,000/- towards medical expenses. Bills are approximately for Rs.26,000/- and contain name of Doctor. Under such circumstances, there would be no justification for disbelieving same. Moreover, insurer has not disputed or challenged award of Rs.25,000/- towards medical expenses. Therefore, claimant is held entitled for said amount. Amount awarded under other heads would not sustain as per decision in Master Mallikarjun’s case (supra). Thus, claimant is held entitled for total compensation of Rs.1,25,000/-. Consequently, following: ORDER i. Appeal is allowed in part, impugned judgment and award dated 01.07.2015 passed by II- Additional Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kalaburagi, in MVC - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3654 MFA No. 201745 of 2019 no.672/2011 is modified. Claimant is held entitled for total compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- as against Rs.55,000/- awarded by Tribunal with interest at rate of 6% per annum from date of petition till deposit. ii. Respondent-insurer to deposit same before Tribunal within six weeks. iii. On deposit, entire amount is ordered to be released to claimant who has since attained age of majority. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE NB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43 Ct: Vk