- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41316 MFA No. 4083 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4083 OF 2020 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI AMAL MOHAN, S/O LATE MOHAN, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS R/AT NO.11/625, KUNUVILA VEEDU, THUDAYANOOR POST, KADAKKAL, KERALA-691536 (A MINOR NOW ATTAINED MAJORITY) …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHRIPAD V SHASTRI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., PRESTIGE CORNICHE NO.62/1, 2ND FLOOR, RICHMOND ROAD, BANGLAORE - 25. BY ITS MANAGER. 2. SRI BHARATH SINHA C S S/O SHAMPRASAD C A R/AT NO.23, "SUNDARA" Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41316 MFA No. 4083 of 2020 3RD A MAIN, BRINDAVAN LAYOUT, PADMANABHANAGAR, NEAR KUMARANS PU COLLEGE, BENGALURU-560061. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.PRADEEP, ADV. FOR R1; V/O/D 14.6.2022, NOTICE TO R2 IS D/W) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED. 25.07.2019, PASSED IN MVC NO.1764/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE X-ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-16), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 25.07.2019 passed by the Court of Small Causes and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCCH-16) (for short `Tribunal') in MVC No.1764/2017, seeking enhancement of compensation. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41316 MFA No. 4083 of 2020 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal. 3. The matter is slated for admission. With the consent of both the side counsels, it is taken up for final disposal. 4. The brief facts of the case are that on 11.03.2017, at 9-45 p.m., when the claimant was crossing the road near Hebbal Ring Road, Hebbal Park, the driver of the Car bearing Reg.No.KA-05-MK-4442 drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit the claimant. As a result of impact, the claimant sustained fracture of distal third of both bones of left leg and other injuries. He took treatment in Abhaya Hospital, Bengaluru and has suffered permanent disability. With these reasons, the claimant has prayed for awarding compensation. 5. Respondent No.1 was the insurer and respondent No.2 was the owner of the offending vehicle. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41316 MFA No. 4083 of 2020 Respondent No.2 remained ex parte before the Tribunal. Respondent No.1 filed its written statement denying the contentions of the claim petitioner and also denied its liability to pay the compensation. It also contended that accident occurred due to negligence of the claimant and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 6. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. 7. The claimant to prove his case, examined PWs.1 and 2 and marked documents as per Exs.P-1 to P-16. The respondent-Insurance Company has examined RW.1 and marked documents as per Exs.R1 and R2. 8. The Tribunal after hearing both parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment held that accident occurred due to negligence of the claimant, as well as driver of the offending Car and in all awarded compensation of Rs.2,98,142/- as under: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41316 MFA No. 4083 of 2020 Particulars Amount in Rs. Pain and sufferings 40,000/- Attendant charges, extra nutritious food and conveyance expenses 26,000/- Loss of income to the parents during laid up period 27,000/- Medical expenses 60,142/- Loss of future income due to permanent disability 1,00,000/- Loss of future amenities and happiness 25,000/- Future medical expenses 20,000/- Total 2,98,142/- Being aggrieved by the said award passed by the Tribunal, the claimant has filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the claimant as well as the insurer. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contended that Tribunal has erroneously held that accident occurred due to contributory negligence of claimant, as well as driver of the offending car; The compensation - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41316 MFA No. 4083 of 2020 awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate; the Tribunal has not assessed the income and the disability of the claimant properly. The compensation awarded under other heads are also on the lower side. 11. The learned counsel for the claimant further contended that the claimant was aged about 17 years at the time of accident. He took due care while crossing the road. However, the driver of the offending car without exercising proper care and caution, drove his vehicle negligently and caused the accident. The sketch shows that the width of the road was nearly 40-60 feet. Although there was sufficient space for the driver of the car to pass and avoid the accident, he negligently hit the claimant-boy. Therefore, no negligence can be attributed against the said boy. The Tribunal has not considered these facts and erroneously held that the claimant contributed to an extent of 40% in causing the accident. Hence, prayed for enhancement of the compensation. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41316 MFA No. 4083 of 2020 12. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 vehemently contended that the accident occurred on a busy and heavy traffic road, claimant was unmindfully crossing the road. Moreover, the spot at which he crossed was not a demarked place for crossing, which clearly indicates negligence on the part of the claimant. The Tribunal has rightly considered this aspect and held that the claimant contributed to the extent of 40% towards the occurrence of the accident, and hence, the finding does not warrant any interference. 13. Looking at the materials available on record, the victim boy was minor, therefore his natural guardian was examined on his behalf. Respondent No.1 did not lead the evidence of driver of the offending car to prove the negligence from the victim boy. Merely the said victim boy crossed the road at the place which was not demarcated for crossing the road, cannot be reason to hold that he was negligent while crossing the road. There were no materials before Tribunal to hold that claimant was - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41316 MFA No. 4083 of 2020 negligently crossing the road. An important aspect to be considered is whether the driver had an opportunity to avoid the accident. In the present case, since the driver was not examined by the respondents, there was no evidence that the driver had exercised due care and caution. RW.1 is not an eye-witness. His evidence do not help to prove that claimant was negligently crossing road. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal in this regard is not tenable and requires to be set aside. 14. Claimant was an adolescent boy aged 17 years and capable of earning. Hence, the law laid down in the case of Master Mallikarjuna vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., and another reported in 2013 ACJ 2445 is not applicable. The Tribunal could have calculated the Loss of future income on the actual basis. 15. The claimant has sustained the following injuries: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41316 MFA No. 4083 of 2020 (i) Blunt injury abdomen with liver haematoma and (ii) Blunt injury chest - (Bilateral contusion with multiple ribs (iii) Fracture distal third of both bones of left leg. 16. PW.2-Doctor has not stated regarding the difficulties faced by the claimant due to the abdominal injuries with liver haematoma. His evidence was restricted only to mentioning of the fracture of both bones in the left leg. 17. Looking at the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 , along with the materials placed on record, the disability of the claimant can be taken as 10% to the whole body. It is true that he was a minor, but not a child; he was aged about 17 years. It is not uncommon in our country that, due to poverty or other circumstances, minors are compelled to work to earn their livelihood. Moreover, the claimant contends that he was working as salesman in supermarket, which is not hazardous employment and is not prohibited. Considering the same and accepting the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41316 MFA No. 4083 of 2020 contention of the claimant, his income is taken as Rs.9,000/- per month. 18. As per the case of Sarla Verma -vs- Delhi Transport Corporation and others, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, the multiplier applicable to the case on hand is '18' and on that basis, compensation is awarded under the head 'loss of future earning capacity due to permanent disability'. 19. Looking at the amount of compensation awarded, it is rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that amount of compensation awarded under the heads 'pain and sufferings' and 'loss of future amenities and happiness' is on lower side, which requires enhancement. 20. For the aforesaid discussions, the claimant is entitled to following amount of compensation: - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41316 MFA No. 4083 of 2020 Particulars Amount in Rs. Pain and sufferings 75,000/- Attendant charges, special diet and conveyance expenses 26,000/- Loss of income to the parents during laid up period (Rs.9000/- x 3) 27,000/- Medical expenses 60,142/- Loss of future income due to permanent disability (Rs.9000x12x18x10%) 1,94,400/- Loss of future amenities and happiness 40,000/- Future medical expenses 20,000/- Total 4,42,542/- Amount awarded by the Tribunal Enhancement- Rounded off - 2,98,182/- 1,44,360/- 1,45,000/- The claimant is also entitled to interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation. 21. Respondent Nos.1 and 2, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount of compensation to the claimant. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41316 MFA No. 4083 of 2020 22. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The Appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The judgment and award dated 25.07.2019 passed by the Court of Small Causes and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCCH-16) in MVC No.1764/2017, stands modified. (iii) The claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.1,45,000/-, with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization, excluding the delayed period of 133 days and [future medical expenses of Rs.20,000/- does not carry interest.] (iv) The respondent No.1 - Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within a period of six weeks from the date of award. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41316 MFA No. 4083 of 2020 (v) The remaining portion of the award of the Tribunal shall remain unaltered. (vi) Amount enhanced is marginal, therefore, entire enhanced amount is ordered to be released in favour of the claimant on due identification. (vii) The claimant is entitled to receive the entire amount awarded by the Tribunal without deduction of 40% towards contributory negligence. (viii) Draw award accordingly. Registry is directed to send back the records along with a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE SMJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18