- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14474 MFA No. 100374 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100374 OF 2017 (MV-I) BETWEEN: KUMAR VINAYAK S/O. ARUN UJJINKOPPA, AGE: 7 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER & NATURAL GUARDIAN SHRI ARUN S/O. ASHOK UJJINKOPPA, R/O: SHILATHI BHAVI, GOKAK, TAL: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. DEEPAK S. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. KANCHAN W/O. RAJU NAIK, AGE: MAJOR, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS, R/O: H.NO.228, VAISHNAVI BUILDING, LAXMI GALLI, HINDALAGA, BELGAVI, TAL & DIST: BELGAVI, (OWNER OF SCOOTY PEP DLX VEHICLE BEARING NO.KA-04-EL-2669) Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.10.31 11:00:35 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14474 MFA No. 100374 of 2017 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BELAGAVI DIVISION, FIRST FLOOR PRABHU BUILDING, 1732, RAMDEV GALLI, BELAGAVI, TALUKA & DISTRICT: BELAGAVI (POLICY NO-610200311410001504 VALID FROM 06-11-2014 TO 05-11-2015) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GANGADHAR S. HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1-IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT PRAYING TO THAT THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03-06-2016, PASSED IN M.V.C.NO.-1047/2015 PASSED BY THE X ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MEMBER ADDITIONAL MACT, BELAGAVI IN AWARDING RS.26,500/- ALONG WITH FUTURE INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% PER ANNUM BE KINDLY BE MODIFIED BY ENHANCING IT TO RS.3,00,000/- @ 18% PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF THE PETITION, TILL THE DATE OF THE PAYMENT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14474 MFA No. 100374 of 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) Heard Sri Deepak S. Kulkarni learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sri Gangadhar S. Hosakeri learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. This appeal is the outcome of the award that is passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Belagavi in MVC 1047 of 2015 dated 03.06.2016. The appellant who was admittedly a 6 years old boy as on the date of accident filed a petition seeking compensation on the ground that he sustained injuries in a road traffic accident. The tribunal through the impugned order awarded a sum of Rs.26,500/- as compensation. Dissatisfied with the sum thus awarded, the present appeal is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant sustained grievous injury in the road traffic accident and underwent a surgery also. He became partially - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14474 MFA No. 100374 of 2017 disabled to attend any work. Therefore the compensation that is granted by the tribunal requires enhancement. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 states that no evidence whatsoever was produced by the appellant to establish the nature of injuries sustained, the treatment taken and the aspect of disability and therefore, the award needs no interference. 5. As rightly contented by learned counsel for respondent No.2, no evidence whatsoever was produced by the appellant to show that he sustained grievous injuries in the road traffic accident, that he underwent a surgery and that the injuries resulted in disability. As per the evidence produced, the appellant sustained only one injury which is simple in nature for which he took treatment as inpatient for 2 days. The tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.7,000/- towards the simple injury, Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.9,485/- towards medical expenses and Rs.5,000 towards food, nutrition and attendant charges. A - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14474 MFA No. 100374 of 2017 sum of Rs.7,000/- is awarded by the tribunal under the head simple injury. The contention of learned counsel for respondent No.2 is that award of such amount is unjustifiable. 6. Having considered the fact that the appellant sustained only one simple injury and took treatment as inpatient for 2 days, this Court is of the view that the sum awarded as compensation i.e., Rs.26,500/- cannot be termed to be on lower side. The compensation granted is highly justifiable and therefore this Court is of the view that there are no grounds to interfere with the well reasoned order of the tribunal. 7. Resultantly, the appeal stands dismissed. Sd/- (CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE EM CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37