- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16538 M.F.A. No.2949/2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2949/2020 (MV-I) BETWEEN: MAHESH S/O RAMESH AGED 5 YEARS, MINOR REP. BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN FATHER RAMESH S/O HANUMANTHAPPA AGED 34 YEARS MASON WORK R/O HIREARAKERE VILLAGE TQ. JAGALUR NOW R/O YALEBETHUR VILLAGE TQ. DIST. DAVANGERE 577001. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. R. SHASHIDHARA, ADV.,) AND: 1. SIDDESH D.S. S/O SHIVAKUMAR H.B. AGED 29 YEARS RIDER OF MOTOR CYCEL BEARING NO.KA-17/EP-1807 R/O CHIKKAAREKERE VILLAGE CHADARAGOLLA POST, DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DSITRICT 577001. 2. CHANNABASAPPA S/O GURUSIDDAPPA AGED 56 YEARS OWNER OF MOTOR CYCLE BEARING NO.KA-17/EP-1807 Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16538 M.F.A. No.2949/2020 R/O CHIKKAAREKERE VILLAGE CHADARAGOLLA POST DAVANGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT 577001. 3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, NARADAMUNI PLAZA, DENTAL COLLEGE OPPOSITE MCC B BLOCK DAVANGERE 577001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAVISH BENNI, ADV., FOR R3 V/O/DTD:16.02.2023 NOTICE TO R1 & R2 D/W) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.04.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.766/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND V ADDITIONAL MACT, DAVANGERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the injured appellant challenging the judgment and award dated 29.04.2019 passed in MVC.No.766/2018 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and V Additional MACT, Davangere, (for short 'the Tribunal'). - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16538 M.F.A. No.2949/2020 2. Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 3. Sri.R.Shashidhara, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has committed a grave error in assessing the disability of the injured minor at 10% and in awarding a meager compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of loss of future earning due to disability, by applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. and Another1. It is submitted that in view of the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the injured appellant is entitled to compensation under the head of loss of future income due to disability by assessing the minimum wages of the injured. Accordingly, he seeks to 1 2013 ACJ 2445 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16538 M.F.A. No.2949/2020 reassess the same and enhance the compensation by allowing the appeal. 4. Per contra, Sri.Ravish Benni, learned counsel for respondent No.3 supports the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that the appellant was aged about 4 years at the time of accident, hence there cannot be any compensation under the head of loss of future income due to disability. It is submitted that the appellant has neither undergone any surgery nor suffered any permanent disability. Taking these aspects into consideration, the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,86,583/-, which is just and reasonable and does not call for any interference. Accordingly, he seeks to dismiss the appeal. 5. I have heard the arguments on both the sides and meticulously perused the material available on record including the Tribunal records. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16538 M.F.A. No.2949/2020 6. The parties to the proceedings do not dispute that the appellant was aged about 4 years at the time of the accident, which occurred on 19.12.2017. As per the evidence available on record, the appellant sustained the following injuries and fracture: "i) Abrasion of 3 x 3 cms over right zygomatic area. ii) 3 abrasions each 1 x 1 cm over right side of cheek, right side of forehead, over supra orbital region. iii) Abrasion 1 x 1 cm over right medial malleolus region. iv) Swelling and tenderness present over right thigh region. v) 3 abrasion of 3 x 2 cm each over occipital, infroccipital of right temporal region. vi) Multiple abrasion each 1 x 1 cm over dorsum of fingers. On X-ray fracture of 1/3rd of soft of right femur." 7. In order to prove the claim, the father of the minor examined himself as PW1 and also examined Dr.Nandakumar as PW2 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P11. The respondent did not adduce any oral evidence; however, with the consent, got marked Ex.R1 to Ex.R3. The Tribunal applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16538 M.F.A. No.2949/2020 Supreme Court in the case of Mallikarjun referred supra assessed disability at 10% and awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of loss of future income due to disability. In total, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,86,583/-. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari and Another2 in paragraph Nos.9 and 15 held as under: "9. The aspect of monthly income of the minor appellant, we are inclined to interfere with the judgment and order of the Courts below. In the present case, it is evident that the Courts below have failed to take into account the monthly income of the appellant while determining the quantum of compensation. It is now a well- entrenched and consistently reiterated principle of law that a minor child who suffers death or permanent disability in a motor vehicle accident, cannot be placed in the same category as a non- earning individual for the purposes of assessing the amount of compensation because the child was not engaged in gainful employment at the time of the accident. In such a case, the computation of compensation under the head of loss of income ought to be made by adopting, at the very least, the minimum wages payable to a skilled workman as notified for the relevant period in the respective State where the cause of action arises. The said observation was rendered by this 2 2025 INSC 1070 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16538 M.F.A. No.2949/2020 Court, in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and Ors3 , and Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Anr4 15. For the purpose of emphasis, it is again clarified here that when a Tribunal or the High Court in appeal, is concerned with the case involving a child having suffered injury or having passed away, the calculation of loss of income necessarily has to be made on the matric of minimum wages payable to a skilled worker in the respective State at the relevant point of time. It is our hope that this restatement helps avoiding such errors and thereby obviates the necessity of this Court’s interference, applying well- established principles of law." 9. Keeping in mind the enunciation of law laid down in the aforesaid decision, I am of the considered view that this Court is required to assess the compensation by taking into account the notional income based on minimum wages of a minor, for the purpose of determining compensation under the head of loss of future income due to disability. The accident is of the year 2017, hence, the notional income of the injured is assessed at Rs.11,000/- per month, as per the notional income chart 3 (2020) 4 SCC 413 4 2024 SCC Online SC 3692 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16538 M.F.A. No.2949/2020 prepared by KSLSA for unskilled labour. The Tribunal taking note of the injuries sustained and the evidence of PW2, has assessed the disability at 10%, which in my view is just and proper. The medical evidence available on record supports the said assessment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision has applied a multiplier of 18, wherein the deceased was aged about 8 years. Accordingly, it would be appropriate to apply the multiplier of 18 to assess the compensation under the head of loss of future income due to disability. Having reassessed the income of the appellant/claimant, the appellant/claimant is entitled to compensation under the head of loss of future income due to disability as under: 11,000 x 12 x 18 x 10% = Rs.2,37,600/- 10. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.9,583/- towards medical bills, which is unaltered. However, taking note of the oral and documentary evidence on record, I - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16538 M.F.A. No.2949/2020 am of the considered view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is required to be reassessed by appropriately enhancing the same. The appellant is entitled to the modified compensation as under: Thus, the appellant-claimant shall be entitled to total compensation of Rs.3,80,183/- as against Rs.1,86,583/- awarded by the Tribunal. 11. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER a) Appeal stands allowed in part. HEADS AMOUNT (in Rs.) Pain & suffering 40,000 Loss of amenities 40,000 Medical Bills 9,583 Loss of income to the parents during laid-up period of the appellant. (Rs.11,000 X 3) 33,000 Loss of future income due to disability 2,37,600 Towards conveyance, attendant charges, food and nourished food 20,000 Total 3,80,183 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16538 M.F.A. No.2949/2020 b) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to an extent that the appellant-claimant would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.3,80,183/- as against Rs.1,86,583/- awarded by the Tribunal. c) The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. d) The Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. e) On such deposit, the Tribunal shall release the entire enhanced compensation amount in favour of the appellant. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16538 M.F.A. No.2949/2020 f) The Registry is directed to transmit the records to the Tribunal forthwith. g) Draw modified award accordingly. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16