- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:873 MFA No. 200804 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI MISC. FIRST APPEAL NO.200804 OF 2020 (MV-I) BETWEEN: THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, NEKRTC, KALABURAGI, R/P - BY DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER NEKRTC, ATHANI ROAD, VIJAYPUR, (NOW REPRESENTED BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER, KALABURAGI). …APPELLANT (BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE) AND: IRANNA @ IRAPPA S/O BASAPPA TALAWAR, AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: KAGGOD, TQ. & DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586 101. …RESPONDENT (NOTICE TO RESPONDENT-SERVED, BUT UN-REPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.01.2020 IN MVC.NO.1443/2016 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND M.A.C.T. VII, VIJAYPUR. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: LUCYGRACE Digitally signed by LUCYGRACE Date: 2025.02.07 11:01:57 - 0800 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:873 MFA No. 200804 of 2020 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent. 02. The appellant – insurance company who is the respondent before the Tribunal is assailing the judgment in MVC.No.1443/2016 dated 14.01.2016 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT-VII, at Vijayapura, on the ground that the age of the petitioner was not properly considered by the Tribunal. The petitioner suffered an accident at the instance of the bus belonging to the appellant while he was riding a motorcycle. It is worth to note that the Tribunal after a full fledged inquiry came to the conclusion that the accident was due to the negligence on the part of driver of the bus. As such, it directed the appellant to pay the compensation of Rs.4,18,200/- under various heads. While coming to such conclusion, while - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:873 MFA No. 200804 of 2020 ascertaining the age of the petitioner, the Tribunal relied upon the age mentioned in the disability certificate of the petitioner which was produced at Ex.P.11. The Tribunal noted that the age of the petitioner in Ex.P.11 is shown as 19 years. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the appropriate multiplier would be 18. 03. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the multiplier selected by the Tribunal is not correct since age is not properly assessed. Inter-alia it is also contended by the appellant that the compensation awarded under the remaining heads is also on the higher side. 04. A careful perusal of the impugned judgment would show that the Tribunal assessed the age of the petitioner on the basis of the age stated in the disability certificate and other documents. Obviously, the petitioner had shown his age at 17 years in the petition. There is no - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:873 MFA No. 200804 of 2020 other material which was produced before the Tribunal to show that the petitioner was aged much younger then 17 years. He had suffered injuries and the disability certificate was also produced. The petitioner claimed that he was assisting his family in agricultural work. Therefore, in any case the disability had to be considered by the Tribunal and it makes no difference whether 17 years or 19 years. In either case, the multiplier would be 18 only. 05. Insofar, as the compensation awarded under the remaining heads is concerned, the assessment of the compensation by the Tribunal is proper, when the nature of the injuries suffered by the petitioner is assessed. There is no reason to interfere with the conclusions reached by the Tribunal in respect of the quantum of the compensation awarded. 06. Therefore, the appeal is bereft of any merits. Accordingly the following; - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:873 MFA No. 200804 of 2020 O R D E R I. The appeal is dismissed at the stage of the admission itself. II. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Tribunal. Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE KJJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37 CT: AK