- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23033 M.F.A. No.2875/2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2875/2020 (MV-I) BETWEEN: THANMAY .D S/O E.D. DYAMANNA AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS MINOR REP BY HIS FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN E.N. DYAMANNA S/O NAGENDRAPPA E.R. AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/O. CHIKKALAGATTA VILLAGE CHITRADURGA TALUK-577501. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. B. PRAMOD, ADV.,) AND: 1. SYED MUJEEB @ SYED MUJIBUR REHAMAN S/O SYED AMEER AHAMMED OWNER OF GOODS VEHICLE REG NO.KA 16 C 9186, WARD NO.7 KHAJI MOHALLA HOLALKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577526. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD BRANCH OFFICE 2ND FLOOR MAGANOOR BASAPPA COMPLEX Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23033 M.F.A. No.2875/2020 B D ROAD CHITRADURGA-577501. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. ARUN PONAPPA, ADV., FOR R2 V/O/DTD:04.01.2022, NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.21.01.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.1112/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT-III, CHITRADURGA, 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 21.01.2020 passed in MVC.No.1112/2018 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT-III, Chitradurga (for short 'the Tribunal'). 2. Sri.B.Pramod, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the minor appellant met with a road accident on 13.09.2018 and sustained injuries. At the time - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23033 M.F.A. No.2875/2020 of the accident he was aged about 8 years. It is submitted that the claim petition was filed and the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,55,553/- by incorrectly appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record. It is further submitted that the doctor has clearly deposed before the Tribunal that the minor appellant suffered 35% physical disability and 70% neurological disability. However, the Tribunal erroneously assessed the disability at only 20% to the whole body and awarded meager compensation. It is also submitted that even after the disposal of the claim petition; the appellant continues to face serious difficulties in carrying out routine activities and is unable to pursue his education. In order to establish the continuous treatment, the appellant has now produced the additional documents evidencing further medical expenses amounting to Rs.3,20,000/- and Rs.19,163/- along with applications seeking their acceptance. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal by remanding the matter back to the Tribunal with a specific direction to reassess - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23033 M.F.A. No.2875/2020 the extent of disability, determine the income of the minor appellant notionally, also consider the additional documents and consequently award just compensation. 3. Per contra, Sri.Arun Ponnappa, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 supports the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that the appellant has now produced certain additional documents and the Insurance Company will not have an opportunity to cross-examine those documents. Therefore, it is appropriate to remand the matter back to the Tribunal. 4. I have heard the arguments on both the sides and meticulously perused the material available on record. 5. The appellant as well as the Insurance Company are not in dispute that the appellant who was aged about 10 years met with a road accident on 13.09.2018 and sustained following fractures as is evident from Ex.P7 and the oral testimony of PW3. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23033 M.F.A. No.2875/2020 "Severe head injury, right frontal compound depressed fracture with orbito zygomatic maxillary fracture, comminuted fracture noted in right humeral epiphysis and metaphysic with displacement, for which he underwent right fronto temporal compressive craniectomy with ORIF of maxillary bone fracture." 6. The evidence of PW3 clearly indicates that the appellant has suffered 35% physical disability and 70% neurological disability. However, the Tribunal without assigning any justifiable reason has reduced the disability to 20% on its own assessment. Taking note of the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, including the fact that he underwent two major surgeries, suffered grievous head and other injuries and was on ventilator initially, I am of the considered view that the compensation of the appellant/claimant is required to be reassessed by considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari and Another1 by notionally assessing the income of the injured minor at Rs.12,500/- per month 1 2025 INSC 1070 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23033 M.F.A. No.2875/2020 by placing reliance on the notional income chart prepared by KSLSA. 7. It is to be noticed that the Tribunal, by disregarding the doctor's evidence and other medical evidence on record has incorrectly assessed the disability. It is a specific contention of the appellant's counsel that even after the disposal of the claim petition by the Tribunal the appellant continues to suffer with the disability, is unable to continue with any work and is unable to pursue his education. In order to substantiate the same, the appellant has produced additional documents along with an applications in IA.Nos.1/2020 and 1/2026 filed under Order XLI Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC'). A perusal of the affidavits accompanying documents indicate that the appellant has incurred further medical expenses of Rs.3,20,000/- and Rs.19,163/- and the said bills were not produced before the Tribunal due to inadvertence. It is also contended that even this day the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23033 M.F.A. No.2875/2020 appellant needs some assistance from an attendant and that his mental condition remains unstable. Considering the aforesaid aspects and taking note of the nature of injuries suffered, I am of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met if the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal, affording an opportunity to the appellant to produce additional evidence by examining any other doctor to substantiate the disability as well as the appellant can produce the medical bills now sought to be placed on record through the applications for additional evidence. 8. For the aforementioned reasons, I am of the view that the Tribunal is required to reconsider the case of the minor injured keeping in mind the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh referred supra by awarding compensation under the head of loss of future earning due to disability by assessing the notional income referred supra and by adding future prospects as the disability assessed by the doctor appears to be 35% - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23033 M.F.A. No.2875/2020 physical disability and 70% to the neurological disability. The Tribunal shall also take into consideration the evidence already available on record and permit the appellant to adduce additional evidence, if any, and thereafter dispose of the claim petition in accordance with law. It is needless to observe that the respondent has all the liberty to produce its evidence and also to cross- examine the witnesses produced by the appellant. With the aforesaid reasoning, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed in part. ii) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 21.01.2020 passed in MVC.No.1112/2018 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT-III, Chitradurga is hereby set aside. iii) The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal with a direction to reconsider the claim petition on merits and in accordance with law. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23033 M.F.A. No.2875/2020 iv) The appellant is permitted to produce additional evidence including the additional evidence produced before this Court and the Tribunal shall take note of the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. v) The Tribunal shall endure to dispose of the claim petition as early as possible, taking note of the fact that the appellant met with an accident in the year 2018. vi) The Registry is directed to return the original documents produced by the appellant along with IA.Nos.1/2020 and 1/2026, after substituting the same with their photocopies. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11