- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15587 MFA No. 10107 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 10107 OF 2018 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI. MURALIDHAR S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS R/AT KAHIKUPPA VILLAGE T GOLLAHALLI POST BANGARPET TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. SUGUNA R. REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. SUBRAMANI K S/O KARUPANNA, MAJOR IN AGE, R/AT NO.1397, VIVEKANAGAR NEAR REDDY CHOUTRY ROBERTSONPET, K.G.F. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., 6TH FLOOR, KRUSHI BHAVAN, OPPOSITE TO HADSUN CHURCH, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. Y.K. SHESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15587 MFA No. 10107 of 2018 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09/02/2018, PASSED IN MVC NO.5341/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXXII ACMM., MEMBER, MACT-3, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, 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 minor injured challenging the judgment and award dated 09.02.2018 passed in MVC No.5341 of 2016 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, (for short, ‘Tribunal’). 2. Though this appeal is listed for admission, with consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 3. Smt.Suguna R. Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15587 MFA No. 10107 of 2018 committed grave error in assessing disability of the appellant at 45% to the whole body by ignoring the oral evidence of PW.2 who has clearly deposed that the appellant lost sight of left eye, undergone skin grafting and other surgery. He was hospitalized for 24 days. It is submitted that the injured was a bright student of SSLC and due to the accidental injury, he lost one academic year and lost marriage prospects due to disfigurement. Hence, she seeks to reassess the compensation by considering the evidence on record and allowing the appeal. 4. Per contra, Sri Y.K. Sheshagiri Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company supports the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that the Tribunal taking note of the fact that PW.2 is not the Ophthalmologist and is a Dermatologist has assessed disability at 40% which does not call for any modification. It is submitted that award of compensation by the Tribunal on all other heads is just and fair and there - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15587 MFA No. 10107 of 2018 is no scope for enhancement. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal. 5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for the respondent and meticulously perused the material available on record including Tribunal records. 6. The only point that would arise for consideration in this appeal is: "Whether the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal calls for any interference?" 7. It is not in dispute that the appellant was a minor at the time of accident which had occurred on 02.01.2016 and he was provided treatment for the injuries suffered in the said accident. In order to substantiate the claim, the father of the appellant was examined as PW.1 and Dr.Smitha S. Segu, examined as PW.2 and got marked 21 documents as Exs.P1 to P21. The respondent - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15587 MFA No. 10107 of 2018 No.2 has examined the driver of the bus as RW.1 and got marked 3 documents as Exs.R1 to R3. The Tribunal, applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mallikarjun V/s Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and Another1, assessed the disability at 45% to the whole body and awarded compensation of Rs.6,16,582/-. 8. The records indicate that the appellant was a student pursuing his SSLC at the time of accident as he was aged about 17 years. The evidence of PW.2 and discharge summaries at EX.P11 and P12 and other medical evidence on record indicate that the appellant was hospitalized in Victoria Hospital on 03.01.2016 for head injuries with multiple facio maxillary fractures with laceration and facial laceration. He was operated in the said hospital. The details of the treatment provided can be noticed from the discharge summaries and also from the 1 2013 SCJ 2445 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15587 MFA No. 10107 of 2018 oral testimony of PW.2 who has assessed the disability. It is also to be noticed that PW.2 is also a treated doctor to the appellant. He being a Dermatologist has taken note of other treatment provided to the appellant has assessed the disability to the whole body at 53%. Further, it is worth to be noticed that PW.2 has clearly deposed before the Tribunal that the appellant has lost his left vision substantially and based on such assessment, he has assessed the disability to the extent of 53%, I am of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has committed grave error in reducing the disability to 45%, which was uncalled for. After perusing the oral testimony of PW.2 and other medical evidence on record, I am of the considered view that the disability to be reassessed at 53% as assessed by the treated doctor. 9. Insofar as award of compensation under the head of loss of future income due to disability, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent decision in the case of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15587 MFA No. 10107 of 2018 Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel V/s Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari and Another2, at paragraph 9 held as under: "9. On 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 Court, in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and Ors.3, and Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Anr4." In view of the enunciation of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred supra, this Court is required to reassess the compensation of the injured 2 Civil Appeal No.10278 of 2025 dtd:08.08.2025 3 (2020) 4 SCC 413 4 2024 SCC Online SC 3692 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15587 MFA No. 10107 of 2018 under the head of disability by assessing the minimum wages of a skilled labour. 10. The accident is of the year 2016. His income is notionally assessed at Rs.9,500/- per month placing reliance on the Notional Income Chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority (KSLSA). Having reassessed the disability at more than 50%, I am of the considered view that the appellant would be entitled addition of 40% towards the loss of future prospects of the injured. Hence, the loss of income due to disability is reassessed as under: Rs.9,500 + 40% (loss of future prospects) x 12 x 18 x 53% = Rs.15,22,584/-. 11. The Tribunal taking note of the difficulty faced, awarded Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of pain and suffering, the same is unaltered. The medical expenses of Rs.51,582/- is awarded, which is the actual expenditure and the same remains unaltered. The Tribunal, taking note - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15587 MFA No. 10107 of 2018 of the difficulty faced by the appellant as well as his family members, awarded the compensation towards loss of amenities, conveyance, food and nourishment, attendant charges at Rs.50,000/-, the same is also unaltered in view of the award of meager compensation under the head of loss of income of the parent during the treatment period at Rs.15,000/-. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has lost a crucial academic year in view of the disability as he was pursuing his SSLC and because of the skin grafting on his face, there is a facial disfigurement. PW.2 has not specifically stated anything with regard to the facial disfigurement. However, considering the nature of surgery undergone and also fact that the injured could not appear for Board Exams due to disability for the said year, I am of the considered view that interest of justice would be met if compensation of Rs.40,000/- is awarded under the head of loss of academic year and disfigurement. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15587 MFA No. 10107 of 2018 13. Thus, the appellant would be entitled to modified compensation as under: Thus, the appellant-claimant shall be entitled to a total compensation of Rs,17,79,166/- as against Rs.6,16,582/- awarded by the Tribunal. 10. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER a) The appeal is allowed in part. HEADS AMOUNT (in Rs.) Pain & suffering 1,00,000/- Medical bills 51,582/- Loss of income during laid up period 15,000/- Loss of future income due to disability 15,22,584/- Loss of amenities, conveyance, food and nourishment and attendant charges 50,000/- Loss of facial disfigurement 40,000/- Total 17,79,166 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15587 MFA No. 10107 of 2018 b) The impugned judgment and award dated 09.02.2018 passed by the Tribunal in M.V.C.No.5341/2016 is modified to an extent that the appellant-claimant would be entitled to total compensation of Rs. 17,79,166/- as against Rs.6,16,582/- awarded by the Tribunal. c) The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation. d) The respondent No.2 shall deposit the enhanced compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. e) The rest of the judgment and award of the Tribunal with respect to apportionment, deposit and release shall remain unaltered. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15587 MFA No. 10107 of 2018 f) Registry shall transmit the records to the Tribunal forthwith. g) Draw modified award accordingly. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE MKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7