- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14681 MFA No. 100738 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100738 OF 2023 (MV-I) BETWEEN: KUMARI LAXMI D/O. BABU GANAGI, AGE: 12 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. NEGINHAL, BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI-591102, (REPRESENTED BY HER MINOR GUARDIAN FATHER SHRI BABU S/O. NAGAPPA GANAGI) …APPELLANT (BY SRI. VIJAYKUMAR KOTIN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. YALLAPPA S/O. MUDAKAPPA KOPPALADAVAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. THIMAPPUR, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI-591104, (OWNER OF THE TATA TRUCK BEARING NO.MEI-4057) 2. THE MANAGER GENERAL, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., HUDAR BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR, OPP. HEAD POST OFFICE, GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.11.05 12:39:12 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14681 MFA No. 100738 of 2023 RAILWAY STATION ROAD, DHARWAD-560 001. THROUGH ITS OFFICER, THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., SAMDEV GALLI, BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI-590001. (INSURER OF TATA TRUCK BEARING NO.MEI-4057 POLICY NO.610500/31/14/6700013026 VALID UP 07.03.2015 TO MIDNIGHT 06-03-2016) …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SHARMILA M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED IN M.V.C. NO.1784/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BAILHONGAL DATED 07.04.2022 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COSTS, 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:14681 MFA No. 100738 of 2023 CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) Heard Sri.Vijaykumar Kotin, learned counsel for the appellant who appears physically before this Court. Also heard Smt.Sharmila M.Patil, learned counsel for respondent No.2 who appears through video conference. 2. Challenge in this appeal is the award that is passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bailhongal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for brevity) in M.V.C. No.1784/2016 dated 07.04.2022. This is the claimant’s appeal. The appellant aged around 6 years as on the date of accident filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- in total. The Tribunal through the impugned award granted a sum of Rs.2,07,883/- as compensation. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14681 MFA No. 100738 of 2023 3. Arguing the matter, learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant sustained grievous injury and became permanently and completely disabled. Thus, the compensation that is granted by the Tribunal is on the lower side and therefore the same requires enhancement. 4. Opposing the submission thus made, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that though as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Master Mallikarjun Vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited & Another1 the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- only in total, the Tribunal granted Rs.2,07,883/- as compensation and therefore the appeal is not maintainable. 5. It is not in dispute that the appellant sustained compound fracture of tibia and fibula 1/3rd right. As per the evidence of PW-2, the physical disability in respect of right lower limb is 20%. The Tribunal took the disability in 1 2014(14) SCC 396 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14681 MFA No. 100738 of 2023 respect of whole body as 7% which needs no interference. Granting Rs.50,000/- as compensation towards pain and suffering, Rs.25,883/- towards medical expenses, Rs.12,000/- towards attendant and conveyance charges, Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of future amenities and Rs.20,000/- towards future medical expenses, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,07,883/- in total. The sum thus granted is highly justifiable. This Court does not find any grounds whatsoever to enhance further. Therefore this Court is of the view that the appeal deserves dismissal. 6. Resultantly, the appeal stands dismissed. Sd/- (CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE RH CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44