- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15032 M.F.A. No.9829/2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.9829/2018 (MV-I) BETWEEN: MASTER PRAJWAL S/O SRI. MAHESH AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS OCC:STUDENT SINCE MINOR REPT BY HIS FATHER & NATURAL GUARDIAN SRI. MAHESH S/O SRI. RAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS OCC:EMPLOYEE AT HIGHWAY COMPANY R/AT NO.42, 5TH C CROSS 3RD MAIN, GIRINAGAR BENGALURU-560085. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SURESH M. LATUR, ADV.,) AND: 1. SRI. MAHESH K.C. S/O SRI. CHANDREGOWDA K.M. R/AT NO.65, KENCHAPPA BUILDING IST FLOOR, GAJENDRANAGAR GEF POST, AVALAHALLI BENGALURU-560026. 2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCD CO LTD., NO.89, 2ND FLOOR Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15032 M.F.A. No.9829/2018 S.V.R. COMPLEX, MADIWALA KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560068. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.C. SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADV., FOR R2 V/O/DTD:09.03.2022 NOTICE TO R2 IS D/W) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:01.09.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.6838/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-14), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the minor injured appellant challenging the judgment and award dated 01.09.2018 passed in MVC.No.6838/2017 by the MACT, Bengaluru, (SCCH-14), (for short 'Tribunal'). 2. Though this appeal is listed for orders, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15032 M.F.A. No.9829/2018 3. Sri.Suresh M. Latur, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant was a minor, aged about 8 years, and sustained a right femur mid shaft fracture and injury to right thigh. He was provided treatment at Hosmat Hospital, Bengaluru as an inpatient and underwent surgery. To substantiate the loss of income, injuries suffered and disability, the father of the appellant was examined and the treating doctor deposed that the appellant has suffered 10% disability to the whole body and 30% disability to a particular limb. However, the Tribunal has awarded meager compensation on all heads. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions, has held that in the case of a minor suffering injuries in a road accident, the compensation is required to be assessed under the head of loss of future income due to disability by assessing minimum wages to skilled labour and applying the appropriate multiplier as per the second schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'). In support of his contentions, he - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15032 M.F.A. No.9829/2018 placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari and Another1 and in the case of V. Mekala v. M. Malathi and Another2. It is further submitted that the appellant is also entitled to the costs of litigation. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal. 4. Per contra, Sri.B.C.Shivanne Gowda, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 supports the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that the appellant is a minor. It is submitted that the injuries suffered by the appellant have completely healed, and therefore, the question of assessing the disability and awarding compensation under the head of loss of future income due to disability does not arise. It is further submitted that the Tribunal taking note of the fact that the injured was an inpatient for 2 days at Hosmat Hospital, Bengaluru, has awarded just compensation on all heads, which does not call for any enhancement. It is also 1 2025 INSC 1070 2 (2014) 11 SCC 178 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15032 M.F.A. No.9829/2018 submitted that the judgments relied by the appellant's counsel have no application to the facts of the case. In the case of Hitesh referred supra, the injuries and disability were more severe. Considering the said aspect, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed to assess the income of the minor and awarded compensation and the said case cannot be made applicable to the case on hand. It is contended that compensation is required to be reassessed on a case to case basis, by considering the evidence before the Tribunal. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal. 5. I have heard the arguments on both the sides and meticulously perused the material available on record. 6. The records indicate that the appellant was a minor aged about 8 years, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. The material on record also indicates that the minor appellant was walking on the extreme left side of the road along with his father on 27.08.2017 at - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15032 M.F.A. No.9829/2018 Avalahalli, Bengaluru. At that time, the rider of the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-05-JM-2980 drove the said motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the minor, resulting in grievous injuries and a fracture. The appellant was immediately taken to Prashanth Hospital, Bengaluru and thereafter, provided treatment at Hosmat Hospital, Bengaluru. In order to prove the claim, the father of the injured was examined as PW1 and Dr.Krishna Prasad was examined as PW2 and got marked Ex.P1 to P18. The respondent did not adduce any evidence. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, awarded the following compensation. HEADS AMOUNT (in Rs.) Pain & sufferings 15,000 Nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges 5,000 Medical expenses 83,600 Loss of amenities 50,000 Loss of income to PW1 during the period of taking treatment by minor petitioner 16,000 Future medical expenses 20,000 Total 1,89,600 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15032 M.F.A. No.9829/2018 7. It is not in dispute between the parties that the appellant was a minor at the time of the accident and was aged about 8 years. It is also not in dispute that he met with a road accident on 27.08.2017, due to the actionable negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle, and the said vehicle was insured with the respondent/insurance company. The records indicate that the appellant was initially provided treatment at Prashanth Hospital, Bengaluru and thereafter, shifted to Hosmat Hospital, Bengaluru. As per Ex.P7, the wound certificate and Ex.P8, the discharge summary and other medical records, the appellant has sustained the following fractures: "1. Right femur mid shaft fracture. 2. Injury to right thigh." 8. The discharge summary indicates that the appellant was treated as an inpatient for a period of 2 days i.e., 28.08.2017 and 29.08.2017 and underwent nailing right femur. PW2, the doctor has deposed before - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15032 M.F.A. No.9829/2018 the Tribunal that the injured appellant has complained irritation due to implants inserted in his right lower limb and he has further expressed difficulty in kneeling, squatting, sitting cross-legged, climbing the staircase and slopes. It is also deposed that the injured has stopped playing and running. PW2 has clearly deposed before the Tribunal that the appellant has suffered disability to the extent of 30% to the left lower limb and 10% to the whole body. Keeping the oral and documentary evidence in mind, I am of the considered view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not just and fair, and required to be reassessed by considering the law laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred supra. 9. It would be useful to extract the relevant paragraphs of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel referred supra: "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 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15032 M.F.A. No.9829/2018 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. 18. In so far as the direction issued regarding the furnishing of the schedule of minimum wages by the insurance company in cases where the income of the claimant/deceased has not been properly established, let a copy of this order be sent by the Registrar Judicial of this Court to the learned Registrar Generals of the High Courts, who shall ensure that the a copy of this order is sent to all Motor Accident Claims Tribunals, to see that the direction is followed strictly." 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision has held that the Tribunals and the High Courts are required to assess the compensation in cases of minors by taking into consideration the minimum wages for skilled workers. Keeping in mind the aforesaid decision and also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V. Mekala referred supra, I am of the view that the compensation awarded in the present case is required to be reassessed. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15032 M.F.A. No.9829/2018 11. In the case on hand, the injured was a minor, aged about 8 years. Hence, his income is required to be notionally assessed by placing reliance on the notional income chart prepared by the KSLSA for the respective years from 2008 to 2022. As the case of an accident is of the year 2017 and considering the said chart, the income of the injured is assessed at Rs.11,000/-. Considering the age of the appellant as 8 years and taking note of the second schedule of the Act, the appropriate multiplier would be 15. PW2 has deposed that the appellant minor has sustained disability to the extent of 10% to the whole body and the same disability is assessed for the award of compensation. Hence, the compensation under the head of loss of future income due to disability would be : 11,000 x 12 x 15 x 10% = Rs.1,98,000/- 12. The award of compensation under the heads of medical expenses, future medical expenses, loss of amenities and loss of income to PW1 during the period of - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15032 M.F.A. No.9829/2018 taking treatment by minor appellant remains unaltered. Having assessed the income and disability of the appellant, considering the nature of injuries suffered and the treatment provided to the appellant, I am of the considered view that the compensation under the other heads is required to be reassessed appropriately. The appellant is entitled to the modified compensation as under: Thus, the appellant-claimant shall be entitled to total compensation of Rs.4,22,600/- as against Rs.1,89,600/- awarded by the Tribunal. HEADS AMOUNT (in Rs.) Pain & suffering 40,000 Loss of amenities 50,000 Medical expenses 83,600 Loss of income to PW1 during the period of taking treatment by minor appellant 16,000 Loss of future income due to disability 1,98,000 Towards conveyance, attendant charges, food and nourished food 15,000 Future medical expenses 20,000 Total 4,22,600 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15032 M.F.A. No.9829/2018 13. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that he is entitled to the cost of litigation cannot be accepted. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, disposed of the appeal in the year 2008 in respect of the accident that occurred in 2007. The present appeal is being disposed of in 2026. There has been no delay or lapse on the part of the insurance company in the conduct of the proceedings. Accordingly, the said contention is rejected. 14. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER a) Appeal stands allowed in part. 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.4,22,600/- as against Rs.1,89,600/- awarded by the Tribunal. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15032 M.F.A. No.9829/2018 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. f) Draw modified award accordingly. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8