- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010474552026 NC: 2026:KHC:49618 RP No. 383 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA REVIEW PETITION NO. 383 OF 2026 (-) IN MFA NO.1137/2026 BETWEEN: THE MANAGER, BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO, LTD,) GOLDEN HEIGHTS, 4TH FLOOR, NO.1/2, 59TH C, CROSS, 4TH M. BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU 560 010, REP BY ITS MANAGER SANTOSH NIRWANI …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVI SHANKAR S. SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI KRISHNA MURTHY J. S. S/O SIDDAPPA AGE ABOUT 48 YEARS 2. SMT. PUSHPALATHA W/O KRISHNAMURTHY, AGE ABOUT 42 YEARS 3. MISS. POORNIMA J. K. D/O KRISHNAMURTHY, AGE ABOUT 19 YEARS Digitally signed by LUCYGRACE Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010474552026 NC: 2026:KHC:49618 RP No. 383 of 2026 4. SRI NIRANJAN T. V. S/O VEERASIDDAIAH, AGE ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT JAGANNATHAPURA, SWANDENAHALLI POST, TUMAKURU TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. V. NAYAK, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; V/O DATED 24.07.2026 NOTICE TO R4 IS D/W) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SEC. 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE PETITION CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN MFA NO.1137/2026 DISPOSED ON 23.04.2026 ON THE FILE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT B) REVIEW THE PETITION JUDGMENT DATED 23.04.2026 IN MFA NO.1137/2026 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, C) BE PLEASED TO GRANT SUCH FURTHER RELIEF AS THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE. THIS PETITION IS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 06.08.2026 AND COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER’, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA CAV ORDER This review petition is filed by the Manager of the Bajaj General Insurance Co. Ltd., against the order of this Court in MFA No.1137/2026 dated 23.08.2026. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010474552026 NC: 2026:KHC:49618 RP No. 383 of 2026 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents mainly contented that respondent Nos.1 to 3 had filed claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act in MVC 958/2022. The Tribunal had granted Rs.5,80,000/- with interest at the rate of 6%. Later, respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed for enhancement and the amount was enhanced from Rs.5,80,000 to Rs.21,25,912/- by considering the multiplier of ‘18’ in MFA No.1137/2026 before this court. 4. The review petitioner contended that the multiplier of ‘15’ is to be taken instead of ‘18’ and he relied upon certain citations and thus requested the court to modify the order by considering the multiplier as ‘15’. He relied upon following citations, 1) 2013 SCC Online SC 284 in case of Reshma Kumari Vs Madan Mohan. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010474552026 NC: 2026:KHC:49618 RP No. 383 of 2026 2) Civil Appeal No.3895/2024 Tangavel and others Vs MD TNSTCL. 3) MFA No.2749/2017 C/w MFA No.2750 & 2751/2017 and 4) MFA No.4894/2016 and further argued that Reshma Kumari Vs Madan Mohan was by three judge bench, in which it was specifically held that the age of the deceased was 15 years, irrespective of whether the claim petition is filed under Section 166 or 163 of MV Act, the Tribunal has to consider the multiplier of ‘15’ and the assessment is to be made as indicated in the second schedule. 5. He also relied upon Civil Appeal No.3595/2024, in which the boy aged 10 years met with an accident and the multiplier of ‘15’ was considered. The order was passed by Division Bench. He also relied upon the order of this Court in MFA NoS.2749/2017 c/w 2750/2017 and 2751/2017 dated 16.6.2026 and MFA No.4894/2016 dated 07.07.2026 in which the multiplier of ‘15’ was considered. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010474552026 NC: 2026:KHC:49618 RP No. 383 of 2026 6. Learned counsel for respondent relied upon the following citations: 1. Civil Appeal No.7067/2026 in case of Gayathri Pattnaik for Shreejitha Patnaik Vs Arundhati Shaoo and another, 2. Civil Appeal No.10278/2025 (arising out of SLP(C)No.14444/2025) in case of Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel Vs Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari and Anr., 3. AIR 2020 Supreme court 776 in case of Kajal Vs Jagdish Chand and other, 4. MAC APP.560/2025 Delhi High Court in case of Tata AIG General Insurance Company Vs Mukesh Kumar and others, 5. MFA No.3740/2021 c/w MFA No.4242/2022 in case of LT.Col Rajinder Singh Shekhawat and another Vs Sru, Girish.G and others and 6. MFA No.2949/2020 in case of Mahesh Vs Siddesh and another. In which multiplier applicable was taken as ‘18’ for minor children aged 6 months child, 8 years, 12 years, 12 years, 15 years and 14 years respectively. - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010474552026 NC: 2026:KHC:49618 RP No. 383 of 2026 7. As Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation and when minor children met with an accident, initially their notional income was taken as Rs.15,000/- p.a., as per the second schedule and later it was enhanced to Rs.30,000/- per annum and later it was directed to take the minimum wages during the particular year of accident. So also, regarding multiplier, initially the multiplier of ‘15’ was taken to the children aged below 15 years and later multiplier ‘18’ was considered. It was time and again stated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that while granting compensation, the Courts and Tribunals, should see that the claimants cannot once again come to the court and considering all the factors, just and reasonable compensation is to be granted for the injuries sustained by them, or when they died in an accident, to their parents, reasonable amount is to be granted. Therefore, in view of the said perception of the courts in course of time, they started taking the multiplier as ‘18’ even for minor children which is beneficial for them. Therefore, this court also - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010474552026 NC: 2026:KHC:49618 RP No. 383 of 2026 considered the multiplier as ‘18’ and finds no reason to review the order. Accordingly, this review petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE AKV List No.: 19 Sl No.: 3 CT:SI