- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14109 MFA No. 100966 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI M.F.A. NO.100966 OF 2017 (MV-D) BETWEEN: SMT. GUNDAMMA @ JYOTHI W/O. KALAPPA, AGED 24 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O. DHARMASAGAR VILLAGE, TQ: HOSPET, BALLARI DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR M. HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KOTRESH S/O. ERANNA B., AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF THE LORRY BEARING ITS NO.KA-34/A-534, R/O. NEAR ITI COLLEGE, BALLARI ROAD, HOSPET, BALLARI DISTRICT. 2. E. MANJUNATH S/O. CHANDRAPPA, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: LORRY OWNER KA-34/A-534, R/O. BEHIND ITI COLLEGE, BALLARI ROAD, HOSPET, BALLARI DISTRICT. 3. THE MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., UMA MAHESHWAR ROA BUILDING, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, HOSPET, BALLARI DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. K. SOUDAGAR, ADV. FOR R3; NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 IS DISPENSED WITH) Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14109 MFA No. 100966 of 2017 THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION FROM RS.5,00,000/- TO 8,00,000/- BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C, HOSPET, DATED 01.01.2016 IN MVC NO.451/2015, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI) 1. This appeal is listed for Order on this day. With the consent of learned Counsels appearing for both parties, the case is taken up for final disposal. 2. The Appellant has maintained this appeal praying for enhancement of the compensation by modifying the judgment and award passed in M.V.C.No.451/2015 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C. Hospet and M.A.C.T., Hospet (for short, ‘the Tribunal’). 3. The petition in M.V.C.No.451/2015 came to be filed claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- in connection with death of one Shivu in a road traffic accident occurred on 02.02.2015. The claim petition was filed by the mother of the deceased. The - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14109 MFA No. 100966 of 2017 Tribunal allowed the petition in part holding that the Claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- together with interest. 4. The Claimant/Appellant has come up with this appeal praying for enhancement of the compensation to Rs.8,00,000/- in place of Rs.5,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal on the ground that the impugned judgment is against the law laid down by this Hon’ble Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the cases pertaining to the death of minors and that the Tribunal has not considered the materials placed on record in support of the claim petition. 5. During the course of argument, learned Counsel for Claimant/Appellant vehemently submitted that the Tribunal has committed error in awarding lesser compensation for the death of minor boy, who was a brilliant and intelligent student and without taking into consideration the law applicable to the facts of the case and the future prospects of the deceased boy. 6. Per Contra, learned Counsel for Respondent No.3 supported the reasoning of the Tribunal and contended that the Tribunal has awarded just and fair compensation in the case. In - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14109 MFA No. 100966 of 2017 support of his contention learned Counsel for Respondent No.3 has also relied on the decision in Kishan Gopal and Another vs. Lala and Others, reported in (2014) 1 SCC 244. 7. In the above referred decision, which is a case pertaining to death of 10 years old boy, Hon’ble Apex Court applying the principles laid down in Lata Wadhwa’s case [(2001) 8 SCC 197] and Susamma Thomus’s case [(1994) 2 SCC 176] held that awarding of total compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- would be fair, just and reasonable compensation. 8. In the case on hand, the deceased was a 4 year old boy, who was studying in LKG at the relevant point of time. It is the case of the Claimant that she was aged 22 years as on the date of the claim petition. However, she has not produced any reliable document before the Tribunal to prove her actual age at the relevant point of time. Whereas, the papers available on record go to show that even the Tribunal has determined the quantum of compensation by relying on the decision in Kishan Gopal and Another referred supra, and by holding that the Claimant herein is entitled for similar compensation. Thus, the materials on record make it clear that the Claimant/Appellant has not made - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14109 MFA No. 100966 of 2017 out any valid ground to modify and to enhance the compensation as claimed in this appeal. 9. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the following : ORDER Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (B. MURALIDHARA PAI) JUDGE CKK /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22