- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15015 MFA No. 23539 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 23539 OF 2013 (MV-I) BETWEEN: KUM ADITYA S/O. Y.S. JAYAPPA, AGE: 9 YEARS, OCC: NIL, SINCE MINOR REP. BY M/G FATHER, Y.S. JAYAPPA S/O. SHEKARAPPA SAB, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. YAKEGONDI, TQ: HARIHAR, DIST: DAVANAGERE, NOW AT KARUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. G.S. HULMANI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ARUNKUMAR G. S/O. GANESHAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: NOT KNOWN, R/O. 4TH MAIN, 1ST CROSS, YALLAMMA NAGAR (VINOBHA NAGAR), DAVANAGERE. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 2ND FLOOR, ARIHANT PLAZA, KUSUGAL ROAD, HUBLI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1-NOTICE DISPENSED WITH) GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15015 MFA No. 23539 of 2013 THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT RANEBENNUR; MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE LEARNED JUDGE IN M.V.C.NO.759/2012 DATED 20TH JUNE 2013 AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AS PRAYED FOR; COST OF THE APPEAL AND ETC. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) 1. Heard Sri. G. S. Hulmani, learned counsel for the appellant, as well as Sri. Rajashekhar S. Arani, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. A boy aged around 9 years, who admittedly sustained grievous injury in a road traffic accident that occurred in the year 2011, filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- in total. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranebennur, which entertained the case as MVC No.759/2012 rendered orders on 20.06.2013 granting a sum of Rs.85,000/- - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15015 MFA No. 23539 of 2013 as compensation. With a version that the said sum is grossly low, the present appeal is filed by the said boy being represented by his father. 3. Arguing the matter, Sri. G. S. Hulmani submits that the disability as assessed by PW2 is 40%. However, the Tribunal took the disability in respect of the whole body as 12%. Learned counsel states that the appellant has to lead his entire life with such disability and therefore reasonable sum may be granted as compensation. 4. The submission that is made by Sri.Rajshekhar S. Arani, learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, is that the disability assessed by the Tribunal is wrong and indeed the disability in respect of the whole body has to be considered less than 10%. 5. Undisputedly the appellant sustained comminuted fracture of shaft of right femur which is grievous in nature. It is not in dispute that the appellant took - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15015 MFA No. 23539 of 2013 treatment as inpatient for a period of 8 days and the injury i.e. the fracture was fixed with screws, wire and rods. As per the evidence of PW2, the fracture is malunited. 6. In the decision that is rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Master Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd.,1 the Court at para 12 of the judgment held as follows: “12. Though it is difficult to have an accurate assessment of the compensation in the case of children suffering disability on account of a motor vehicle accident, having regard to the relevant factors, precedents and the approach of various High Courts, we are of the view that the appropriate compensation on all other heads in addition to the actual expenditure for treatment, attendant, etc., should be, if the disability is above 10% and upto 30% to the whole body, Rs.3 lakhs; upto 60%, Rs.4 lakhs; upto 90%, Rs.5 lakhs and above 90%, it should be Rs.6 lakhs. For permanent disability upto 10%, it should be Re.1 lakh, unless there are exceptional circumstances to take different yardstick”. 1 (2014) 14 SCC 396 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15015 MFA No. 23539 of 2013 7. Thus, strictly applying the said decision, the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. However, the disability of the appellant as per the evidence produced is between 8% to 12% in respect of the whole body. Therefore, considering the evidence produced, this Court is of the view that the appellant is entitled to get sum of Rs.2,50,000/- in total as compensation. 8. Therefore, the appeal is disposed of with the following order: ORDER i. Appeal is allowed in part. ii. Compensation that is granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranebennur, through orders in MVC No.759/2012 dated 20.06.2013 is enhanced from Rs.85,000/- to Rs.2,50,000/-. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15015 MFA No. 23539 of 2013 iii. The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. iv. Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the enhanced sum within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. v. On such deposit, appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount subject to producing sufficient proof that he attained the age of majority. Sd/- (CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE gab CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56