- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19137-DB MFA No. 3429 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 3321 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No. 3429 OF 2024 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No. 3321 OF 2024 (MV-I) IN MFA No. 3429/2024 BETWEEN: 1. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., No.28, 7TH CROSS, 1ST STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, NEAR BDA COMPLEX BENGALURU-560038, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. &APPELLANT (BY SRI RAVI SHANKAR S. SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MASTER NIKHIL, S/O T. ARUN KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS, SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, T. ARUN KUMAR, S/O THIMMARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O UPPARAHALLI VILLAGE, Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19137-DB MFA No. 3429 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 3321 of 2024 KUMBALAHALLI POST, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562114. 2. SRI HARISH R., S/O M. V. RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT No.9, I MAIN, NEAR PRAGATHI SCHOOL, SRR LAYOUT, MAHADEVAPURA, BENGALURU NORTH-560016. &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI NAGARAJA REDDY D., ADVOCATE FOR R1; R1 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN - FATHER; NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.02.2024 PASSED IN MVC No.4761/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, SCCH-11, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.19,34,069/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. IN MFA No. 3321/2024 BETWEEN: 1. MASTER NIKHIL, AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS, S/O T. ARUN KUMAR, SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN T. ARUN KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O THIMMARAYAPPA R/O UPPARAHALLI VILLAGE, KAMBALAHALLI POST, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562114 ...APPELLANT (BY SRI NAGARAJA REDDY D., ADVOCATE) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19137-DB MFA No. 3429 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 3321 of 2024 AND: 1. BAJAJ ALIANZ GENERAL INSURACE CO. LTD., No.28, 7TH CROSS, 1ST STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, NEAR BDA COMPLEX, BANGALORE-560 038 REP. BY ITS MANAGER. 2. HARISH R., AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, S/O M. V. RAJANNA, R/A. No.9, I MAIN, NEAR PRAGATHI SCHOOL, SRR LAYOUT, MAHADEVAPURA, BENGALURU NORTH-560 016. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI RAVI SHANKAR S. SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.02.2024 PASSED IN MVC No.4761/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACMM AND MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-11), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19137-DB MFA No. 3429 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 3321 of 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND) Heard Sri Ravi Shankar S. Samprathi, learned counsel for the Insurer and Sri D. Nagaraja Reddy, learned counsel for the claimant (minor represented by his natural guardian-father). 2. These appeals arise out of the judgment and award dated 08.02.2024 passed in MVC No.4761/2020 by the I Additional Small Cause Judge & ACMM & MACT, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as <the Tribunal=). Accordingly, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2.1 MFA No.3429/2024 is filed by the insurer, questioning its liability, while MFA No.3321/2024 is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation. For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranks before the Tribunal. 3. The facts, in brief, are that on 06.11.2020, at about 4:40 p.m., while the petitioner was walking on the footpath, a Skoda car bearing No.KA-53-MF-5037 (offending vehicle), driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the petitioner. As a - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19137-DB MFA No. 3429 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 3321 of 2024 result of the impact, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. The petitioner was admitted to the hospital and underwent treatment as an inpatient. It is further pleaded that, as on the date of the accident, the petitioner was a student aged 12 years. 3.1 Respondent No.13Insurer, upon service of notice, filed its written statement denying the age, occupation, income of the petitioner, as well as the involvement of the vehicle. However, it admitted the issuance of the policy covering the offending vehicle. It was contended that the driver of the car was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident, and that the person who was actually driving the vehicle has been substituted with another driver holding a valid driving licence. It was further contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner. 3.2 The father of the claimant examined himself as PW1, and the doctor was examined as PW2. Exs.P1 to P13 were marked in support of the petitioner9s case. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 to RW3 were examined and Exs.R1 to R6 were marked. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19137-DB MFA No. 3429 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 3321 of 2024 3.3 The Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence on record, held that one Rajesh was driving the car and that he had pleaded guilty before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosakote, and paid a fine of Rs.1,500/-. Said Rajesh was not examined, as he had died due to COVID-19. The Tribunal further held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the car. 3.4 Insofar as the income of the injured is concerned, the Tribunal, relying upon the judgment of the Hon9ble Supreme Court in Master Mallikarjun vs. The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. and anr. [(2014) 14 SCC 396], and taking into consideration the disability of 25% assessed by the doctor, awarded a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards pain and suffering. The Tribunal further awarded Rs.16,14,069/- towards medical expenses, including incidental expenses, and an additional sum of Rs.20,000/- towards discomfort, inconvenience, and loss of earnings to the parents during the period of hospitalisation. 4. Sri Ravi Shankar S. Samprathi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant3Insurer, contends that at the time of the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19137-DB MFA No. 3429 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 3321 of 2024 accident, Rajesh was not driving the offending vehicle. It is contended that Rajesh died due to COVID-19 and that his driving licence has been misused. It is further submitted that the Tribunal committed an error in concluding that Rajesh was driving the car at the time of the accident. It is also submitted that the Tribunal failed to consider the substitution of the driver, and that the person who was actually driving the car at the time of the accident was not in possession of a valid and effective driving licence. 5. Sri D. Nagaraj Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent3claimant, submits that the finding of the Tribunal that Rajesh was driving the car at the time of the accident and that he possessed a valid and effective driving licence is based on the evidence on record. Learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal committed error in assessing the compensation applying the judgment of the Hon9ble Supreme Court in Master Mallikarjun (supra). 5.1 It is submitted that, in view of the judgment of the Hon9ble Supreme Court in Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel vs. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari and anr., (2025 INSC 1070) the notional - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19137-DB MFA No. 3429 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 3321 of 2024 income of a minor is required to be assessed on the basis of the minimum wages payable to a skilled workman prevailing in the concerned State. It is further submitted that the compensation is liable to be recomputed on the basis of the minimum wages applicable in the State of Karnataka in terms of the aforesaid judgment. It is also contended that the petitioner is entitled to compensation under other appropriate heads. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 7. The age of the injured, the involvement of the vehicle, and the subsistence of the policy are not in dispute. However, it is contended that Rajesh was not driving the vehicle as on the date of the accident and that his driving licence has been misused by substituting him with another person. It is further submitted that Rajesh had died due to COVID-19 and, as he was working as a driver with the registered owner of the car, his driving licence has been improperly utilised. 7.1 The Tribunal, upon consideration of the aforesaid contentions, held that there is no evidence to substantiate the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19137-DB MFA No. 3429 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 3321 of 2024 same. It was observed that no documentary evidence was produced in support of the insurer9s contention. The Tribunal further noted that the death certificate of Rajesh had not been produced. 7.2 On the basis of the evidence on record, the Tribunal concluded that Rajesh was driving the car at the time of the accident and that he possessed a valid and effective driving licence. The appellant3insurer has failed to place any material on record to the contrary. In the absence of any such evidence, we find no justification to interfere with the findings recorded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the contention of the appellant regarding substitution of Rajesh stands rejected. 8. Insofar as the contention of the injured/claimant that the compensation is required to be re-determined in the light of the law laid down by the Hon9ble Supreme Court in Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel (supra) is concerned, we find some force in the said contention. 8.1 The Hon9ble Supreme Court, while considering a case where a minor child had suffered disability in a motor vehicle - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19137-DB MFA No. 3429 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 3321 of 2024 accident, held that compensation under the head of 8loss of income9 is to be computed by adopting the minimum wages payable to a skilled workman during the relevant period in the respective State where the cause of action arose. The Hon9ble Supreme Court, accordingly, computed the compensation by taking the minimum wages prevailing in the State of Gujarat as the basis. 8.2 In cases where there is no evidence to establish the income of the deceased/injured, this Court has been consistently relying upon the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority (KSLSA), which prescribes the notional income for the purpose of computing compensation. The said chart has been uniformly adopted by the Courts in the State as a guiding basis. 8.3 As we find that there is no substantial difference between the minimum wages and the notional income indicated in the KSLSA chart, and since the same would be advantageous to the claimant/injured, we deem it appropriate to assess the compensation on the basis of the notional income. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19137-DB MFA No. 3429 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 3321 of 2024 8.4 The accident is of the year 2020, and the notional income for the said year is assessed at Rs.14,500/- per month. The said income is required to be enhanced by 40% towards future prospects. The petitioner has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 25%. Accordingly, the loss of income/future earning capacity on account of disability is reassessed on the said basis. 14,500 + (40% of 14,500) = 20,300/- 20,300 X 12 X18 X 25% = 10,96,200/- 9. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.16,14,069/- towards medical expenses based on the bills produced on record. We find no error in the said quantification, as it is duly supported by the medical bills. 10. The evidence on record indicates that the petitioner sustained multiple injuries, including injuries to the brain and multiple facial bone fractures. The petitioner was treated as an inpatient for a period of 32 days. 10.1 PW.23Doctor has deposed that the petitioner suffered facial abrasions, left peri orbital swelling, tongue laceration, and a left ankle injury. The CT scan of the brain revealed multiple - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19137-DB MFA No. 3429 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 3321 of 2024 contusions in the left frontal lobe, multiple sulcal subarachnoid haemorrhage, a depressed and comminuted fracture of the left frontal bone, and multiple facial fractures. It is also noted that the petitioner underwent a tracheostomy. 10.2 It is further stated that, on account of the injuries, the petitioner has developed impaired memory and intelligence and exhibits excessive and irrelevant speech. Taking into consideration the aforesaid injuries, the doctor has assessed the disability at 25%. We find no reason to differ from the said assessment and accordingly accept the same. 11. Having regard to the nature of injuries, the treatment undergone by the petitioner, the pain and suffering endured, as well as the loss of income suffered by the parents during the period of treatment and post-treatment, we are inclined to award compensation under the following heads. Thus, the total compensation is re-computed and tabulated as under; (14,500 + 40%) X 25% X 12 X 18 = Rs.10,96,200/- - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19137-DB MFA No. 3429 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 3321 of 2024 Sl. No. Particulars Amount by this Court in Rs. 1. Loss of Income/Future Earnings due to Disability 10,96,200/- 2 Medical Expenses 16,14,069/- 3 Future Medical Expenses 20,000/- 4 Special diet and Transportation 20,000/- 5 Loss of Marriage prospects 75,000/- 6 Loss of income during treatment 43,500/- 7 Pain and sufferings 1,25,000/- 8 Loss of amenities 50,000/- TOTAL 30,43,769/- Thus, the total compensation awarded is at Rs.30,43,769/- as against compensation awarded by Tribunal at Rs.19,34,069/-. 12. Accordingly, the following; Order (i) MFA No.3429/2024 is dismissed. (ii) MFA No.3321/2024 is allowed in-part. (iii) The judgment and award 08.02.2024 in MVC No.4761/2020 passed by the I Additional Small - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19137-DB MFA No. 3429 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 3321 of 2024 Cause Judge & ACMM & MACT, Bengaluru, is modified. (iv) The claimant is entitled to the total compensation of Rs.30,43,769/- as against Rs.19,34,069/- awarded by the Tribunal. (v) The conditions imposed by the Tribunal with regard interest, deposit, and disbursement of the amount shall remain unaltered. (vi) The Registry is directed to transfer the amount in deposit, if any, to the Tribunal, forthwith. (vii) Draw modified decree accordingly. (viii) No order as to costs. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE MV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23