- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21708 M.F.A. No.3394/2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3394/2019 (MV-I) BETWEEN: MASTER. M. CHARAN S/O MURALI AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS SINCE MINOR BEING REP. BY HIS FATHER CUM NATURAL GUARDIAN MURALI S/O RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT WARD NO 1, HOUSING BOARD BAGEPALLI TALUK CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT - 561207. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. SUGUNA R. REDDY, ADV.,) AND: 1. IMTIYAZ PASHA S/O MEHABOOB SAB MAJOR, R/AT NO 32 DODDA DENAHALLI VILLAGE HOSAKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER M/S IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD NO.144, 4TH FLOOR SHANTHI TOWERS Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21708 M.F.A. No.3394/2019 3RD MAIN, EAST OF NGEF LAYOUT KASTHURI NAGAR BENGALURU - 560043. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADV., FOR R2 SRI. SHRIPAD V. SHASTRI, ADV., FOR R1) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.02.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.412/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, XVI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, 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 Sri.B.Pradeep, learned counsel accepts notice for respondent No.2-Insurance Company. This appeal is filed by the injured/claimant seeking enhancement of compensation being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 18.02.2019 passed in MVC.No.412/2018 by the XVI Additional Judge, Court of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21708 M.F.A. No.3394/2019 Small Causes, and Member, MACT, Bengaluru, (for short, ‘Tribunal’). 2. Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 3. Sri.Suguna R. Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant-injured submits that the Tribunal has committed grave error in awarding meager compensation of Rs.3,86,500/- by ignoring the fact that PW2 has assessed the disability of the injured to the extent of 46.8% to the particular limb. It is submitted that the appellant was aged about 8 years and was a III Standard student, sustained degloving injury of the right leg and there was a crush of muscles and soft tissues were also damaged. It is further submitted that the appellant was inpatient for 40 days and skin grafting was carried out on the minor-injured, which caused pain and suffering for more than a year and the family of the minor-injured also suffered in taking care of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21708 M.F.A. No.3394/2019 the injured and incurred substantial expenses toward the same. Hence, she seeks to reassess the compensation by allowing the appeal. 4. Per contra, Sri.B.Pradeep, learned counsel for the respondent No.2-Insurance Company supports the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that there are no fractures as the appellant- injured has sustained degloving injury on his right leg, which, though took time to heal, the entire injury has been healed. Hence, there cannot be any reassessment of the disability. It is submitted that the award of compensation by the Tribunal is based on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Master Mallikarjurn v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. and another1 and the said award of compensation is just and proper and there is no scope for enhancement. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal. 1 ILR 2013 KAR 4891 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21708 M.F.A. No.3394/2019 5. Sri.Shripad V.Shastri, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 submits that respondent No.1 is the owner of the vehicle and respondent No.2 indemnified the said vehicle. Hence, respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation and submits that the award of compensation by the Tribunal is just and proper. 6. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for respondents and perused the material available on record. 7. The only point that would arise for consideration in this appeal is : "Whether the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal calls for any interference?" 8. The appellant-injured met with a road accident on 23.10.2017 when he was walking on the DVG road, Bengaluru. The records indicate that the accident is caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21708 M.F.A. No.3394/2019 bearing Reg.No.KA-53-9269. The jurisdictional police, after investigation, filed the charge sheet against the driver of the said lorry. The appellant was provided treatment at Victoria Hospital, Bengaluru and he was hospitalized as inpatient on 24.10.2017 and discharged on 04.12.2017. In order to prove the claim, the father of appellant-injured (minor) examined as PW-1 and Dr.Smitha S.Segu as PW2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P16. The respondents have not adduced any evidence. The Tribunal, considering the oral and documentary evidence, awarded total compensation of Rs.3,86,500/-. The perusal of the claim averments, oral evidence of the father of the injured, the evidence of Dr.Smitha S.Segu, who is a Plastic Surgeon at Victoria Hospital, it is noticed that the appellant-injured has sustained degloving injury of the right leg exposing and crush of the muscles and soft tissue over the antero medical aspect and exposed medial condyle of the femur. The medical evidence and the oral testimony on record indicate that skin grafting on the minor-injured was carried - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21708 M.F.A. No.3394/2019 out by giving general anesthesia and there are multiple scars on the thigh. Considering the injuries suffered and nature of treatment provided, PW2 is of the opinion that the appellant has sustained disability to the right lower limb to an extent of 46.8%. Considering the oral evidence of PW2, wound certificate at Ex.P6, discharge summary at Ex.P7 and other medical evidence on record, I am of the considered view that the interest of justice would be met if the disability is assessed at 16% to the whole body for the purpose of determination of compensation. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari and Another2 held that the High Courts or the Tribunals is concerned with the cases involving a child having suffered injury or having passed away, the calculation of the loss of income necessarily has to be made on the matric of minimum wages payable to the skilled worker in the respective states. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the 2 2025 ACJ 1986 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21708 M.F.A. No.3394/2019 aforesaid decision has held that in case of award of compensation to the minor injured, the income is required to be assessed and compensation under the head of loss of future earning due to the disability is required to be awarded. 10. Admittedly, the appellant was aged about 8 years at the time of accident, hence considering his age and placing reliance on the notional income chart prepared by the KSLSA for the relevant year, it would be appropriate to assess the income of the injured notionally at Rs.11,000/- per month. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case has applied 18 as a multiplier. The same multiplier is required to be applied in the case on hand. Hence, the compensation under the head of loss of future income due to disability would be: Rs.11,000 x 12 x 18 x 16% = Rs.3,80,160/-. 11. The oral evidence of PW2 and other medical evidence on record indicate that the minor was inpatient - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21708 M.F.A. No.3394/2019 for 40 days in Victoria Hospital, underwent surgery as well as skin grafting and post discharge also he was required to take treatment. Taking note of the nature of injuries suffered, treatment provided to the injured, I am of the considered view that the compensation on other heads is also required to be reassessed. Hence, the appellant would be entitled to compensation of Rs.60,000/- towards pain & suffering; Rs.30,000/- towards food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges; Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities in life. The father of minor-injured would be entitled to Rs.44,000/- (Rs.11,000 X 4) towards the loss of income during laid-up period. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses and future medical expenses is unaltered. 12. Thus, the appellant would be entitled to modified compensation as under: - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21708 M.F.A. No.3394/2019 Thus, the appellant-claimant shall be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.5,89,660/- as against Rs.3,86,500/- awarded by the Tribunal. 13. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER a) Appeal is 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 a total compensation of Rs.5,89,660/- as against Rs.3,86,500/- awarded by the Tribunal. HEADS AMOUNT (in Rs.) Pain & suffering 60,000 Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges 30,000 Medical expenses 15,500 Loss of amenities 50,000 Loss of income of father of the injured during laid up period 44,000 Future medical expenses 10,000 Loss of future income due to disability 3,80,160 Total 5,89,660 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21708 M.F.A. No.3394/2019 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) The apportionment, deposit and disbursement shall be made as per award of the Tribunal. f) Draw modified award accordingly. 14. Sri.B.Pradeep, learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company is permitted to file vakalath in three weeks. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE BSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9