- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33989 MFA No. 3925 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3925 OF 2020(MV-I) BETWEEN: KUMARI NIVEDITHA P D/O PRADEEP KUMAR AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS R/AT DOOR NO.4-66/2A KEMBAR HOUSE ALAPE PADIL MANGALURU D K DISTRICT-575007. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KESHAVA S/O BABUSAPALYA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT SHIVANAGARA MOODUSHEDDE VAMANJOOR MANGALURU D K DISTRICT-575012. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD 2ND FLOOR INLAND ORNATE OPP: HOTEL OCEAN PEARL KODIALBAIL MANGALURU D K DISTRICT -575 003. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.L SREEKANTA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2: R1 KESHAVA SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) Digitally signed by DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33989 MFA No. 3925 of 2020 THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 31.08.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.97/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, MANGALURU D.K, 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 RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The claimant, being dissatisfied with the compensation of Rs.3,94,388/- awarded by the Tribunal, is in appeal. 2. The fact that the accident occurred and the further fact that the offending vehicle was insured are not in dispute. 3. The Tribunal, on assessment of evidence, has awarded the following sums as compensation: Sl. No. Particulars Amount in (Rs.) 1. Loss of future income due to disability 2,25,000 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33989 MFA No. 3925 of 2020 2. Medical Expenses 1,41,738 3. Conveyance, Nourishment and Attendant Charges 7,650 4. Pain and Sufferings 10,000 5. Loss of amenities and unhappiness 10,000 Total 3,94,388 4. I have perused the evidence of the Doctor-PW-2 and the wound certificate-Ex.P7. The same depicts that the claimant has sustained multiple abrasions over the Palmar aspect of right wrist, abraded contusion over the left knee, fracture of left femur bone, fracture of frontal bone, Mandible bone, Zygomatic bone and nasal bone, laceratio of the tongue, dislocation of right lower central and lateral incisor teeth, dislocation of left lower central, lateral incisors, canine and 1st premolar teeth, tenderness and swelling over the fact, laceration of lower lip internally and other parts of the body. 5. Since the claimant has sustained 14% disability to the left lower limb and 20% disability to the face, the whole body disability of the claimant is assessed at 11%. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33989 MFA No. 3925 of 2020 6. As per Ex.P-11, Birth Certificate, the deceased was aged about 15 years at the time of the accident. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of CHETHANA AND OTHERS – V- BABUJI M AND OTHERS reported in 2021 ACJ 1146 has held that even if the deceased was minor and he is aged more than 14 years, he is an adolescent and his income can be assessed as per the notional income determined by the Court. 7. In view of the law laid down by this Court in the above said decision, the assessment of income of the claimant at Rs.15,000/- p.a. by the Tribunal, on the ground that the deceased was minor, aged 15 years, as per Birth Certificate produced at Ex.P-11, is unjustified and erroneous. If the deceased was a minor and aged more than 14 years at the time of accident, his income has to be assessed notionally. 8. The Tribunal, as per the Second Schedule of Indian Motor Vehicle Act, has awarded compensation at Rs.2,25,000/- (Rs.15,000/- p.a. X 15 years) under the head of loss of future income on the ground that the claimant was a minor aged about 15 years at the time of the accident. However, the said finding of the Tribunal calls for interference in view of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33989 MFA No. 3925 of 2020 judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari and Another, (2025 INSC 1070), wherein it has been held that in the case of the death or injury of the minor, the future loss of income has to be considered with an appropriate multiplier. The paragraph No.9 of the said judgment reads as follows: “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. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33989 MFA No. 3925 of 2020 The said observation was rendered by this Court, in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and Ors., and Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Anr.” 9. As such, placing reliance of the above said judgment, the compensation in respect of loss of future income has to be awarded by considering the age, injuries sustained by the claimant and other aspects. 10. In the present case, since the accident is of the year 2016, it is appropriate to take the notional income as per the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority i.e. Rs.9,500/- per month. The said amount is therefore taken as the notional income of the claimant. Considering that the claimant was aged 15 years at the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier applicable is ‘15’. Accordingly, the compensation towards 'loss of future income' works out to Rs.1,88,100/- (Rs.9,500 x 12 x 15 x 11%), as against the sum of Rs.2,25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head of ‘loss of future income due to disability’. 11. Having regard to the length of the stay of the claimant in the hospital and having regard to the injuries - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33989 MFA No. 3925 of 2020 suffered, it would be just and appropriate to treat the laid up period as 3 months. Thus, the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.28,500/- (9,500 x 3 months) towards 'loss of income during the laid up period'. 12. Having regard to the lasting effects of the injuries on the claimant, the claimant would also be entitled to a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards ‘loss of amenities’. 13. Having regard to the injuries suffered by the claimant, the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards 'pain and suffering'. 14. Having regard to the injuries suffered by the claimant, the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards ‘food, conveyance and attendant charges’. 15. The sums awarded as ‘medical expenses’ at Rs.1,41,738/-, being based on documentary evidence, do not call for modification and hence confirmed. 16. Having regard to the injuries suffered by the claimant and considering the medical records on record, the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33989 MFA No. 3925 of 2020 claimant may require further treatment in the future, hence, the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards 'future medical expenses (replacement of teeth). 17. Consequently, the claimant would be entitled to the following compensation: Sl. No. Compensation under different Heads As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.) As awarded by this Court (Rs.) 1. Loss of Future Income 225,000 1,88,100 2. Medical Expenses 141,738 1,41,738 3. Food and Attendant Charges 7,650 10,000 4. Future Medical Expenses (replacement of teeth) - 40,000 5. Loss of amenities 10,000 25,000 6. Pain and Sufferings 10,000 40,000 7. Loss of earning during laid up period - 28,500 Total 3,94,388 4,73,338 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33989 MFA No. 3925 of 2020 18. In the result, the following order is passed: ORDER a) The appeal is allowed in part. b) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified. c) The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.4,73,338/- as against Rs.3,94,388/-, along with interest from the date of petition till its realization. d) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. Sd/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 39