- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14103 MFA No. 101030 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101030 OF 2019 (MV-I) BETWEEN: KUMAR. RAMASIDDU S/O. MURAGEPPA DEVARADDI, BEING MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL MOTHER AS MINOR GUARDIAN SMT. ARCHANA W/O. MURAGEPPA DEVARADDI, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. # 548/4, GOKAK ROAD, NEAR RATNA SANGAM, YARAGATTI, TQ: SOUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. G.R. TURAMARI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. H.D. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI. PATREPPA S/O. MAHANTAPPA HALYAL, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. PLOT NO.6, DEVRAJ URS COLONY, BASAVAN KUDACHI, TQ/DIST: BELAGAVI-590001. Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.10.31 11:00:36 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14103 MFA No. 101030 of 2019 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., HAVING ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE AT 2ND FLOOR, J.P. & J.V. JAMBUKESHWAR ARCADE, NO.69, MILLERS ROAD, BANGALORE-560 052. …RESPONDENTS (BY MISS ANUSHA SANGHAMI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1-SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.9,13,000/- TO RS.20,00,000/-, BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI IN M.V.C. NO.12/2018 DATED 31.01.2019 AND CONSEQUENTLY GRANT THE ENTIRE COMPENSATION IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT/PETITIONER BY SADDLING THE ENTIRE LIABILITY UPON THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14103 MFA No. 101030 of 2019 CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) Heard Sri.G.R.Turamari who represents Sri.H.D.Patil learned counsel on record for the appellant. Also heard Miss.Anusha who represents Sri.S.K.Kayakamath learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. Projecting that he is entitled to a higher sum as compensation, the present appeal is filed by the claimant in M.V.C. No.12/2018 which stood pending before the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Belagavi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for brevity) and was disposed of through orders dated 31.01.2019. 3. Learned counsel who represents the appellant submits that though the appellant is left with disability of 90%, yet the Tribunal without considering the said aspect, awarded a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation towards - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14103 MFA No. 101030 of 2019 permanent functional disability. Learned counsel submits that aggrieved by the sum thus awarded, the present appeal is filed. Learned counsel thereby seeks for enhancement in compensation. 4. Vehemently opposing the submission thus made, learned counsel who represents respondent No.2 states that the evidence of PW-2 itself is that the disability in respect of lower limb is 90% and thus it cannot be equated to whole body. Learned counsel states that the tribunal rightly considered the disability in respect of whole body as 30%. Learned counsel submits that exorbitant amount is awarded as compensation and therefore the appeal is not maintainable. 5. It is not in dispute that the appellant was aged around 9 years as on the date of accident. Equally it is not in dispute that he sustained crush injury to the left leg and there was fracture of tibia and fibula lower 1/3rd. As rightly contented by learned counsel for respondent No.2, the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14103 MFA No. 101030 of 2019 assessment of PW-2 is that the disability in respect of lower limb is 90%. Thus the Tribunal has rightly considered the disability in respect of whole body as 30%. As per the decision in Master Mallikarjun Vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited & Another1 case, which was also referred to by the Tribunal, if the disability is above 10% and upto 30% to the whole body, the compensation payable is Rs.3,00,000/- only apart from granting the actual expenditure towards treatment, attendant charges, etc. However in the case on hand, the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. Apart from the said amount, the Tribunal granted Rs.1,93,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.1,00,000/- towards discomfort, inconvenience and loss of earnings to parents, Rs.70,000/- towards attendant charges and special diet and Rs.50,000/- towards future medical expenses. The Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.9,13,000/- in total. The sum thus granted is highly justifiable. This Court does not find any grounds 1 2014(14) SCC 396 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14103 MFA No. 101030 of 2019 whatsoever to interfere with the impugned award. Hence, this Court holds that the appeal deserves dismissal. 6. Therefore, the appeal stands dismissed. Sd/- (CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE RH,EM CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16