Master. Harish M Vs Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd.

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.09.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO. 4768/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGLURU (SCCH-13) PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶24

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

This appeal is filed by the claimant being aggrieved by

¶27

the judgment and award dated 24.09.2019 passed by the II Addl.Judge & ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (for short `Tribunal'), in MVC No.4768/2018, seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶28

The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

¶29

The brief facts of the case are that, on 23.03.2018,

¶30

at about 11 a.m., the claimant met with an accident due to

¶31

3 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:46796 MFA No. 10 of 2020

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

involvement of the bus bearing registration No.GJ-14-X-0999 on Bengaluru-Tumkur NH-4, at T.Begur. Due to the impact claimant suffered fracture of parietal bone and other injuries. He has spent substantial amount towards medical expenses. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he has suffered permanent disability. With these reasons, the claimant has prayed for awarding of compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

¶35

The respondent No.1 was the insurer and

¶36

respondent No.2 was the owner of the offending bus. Respondent No.2 filed its written statement denying the contentions of the claim petitioner and denied its liability to pay compensation. With these reasons, it prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

¶37

From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues.

¶38

The claimant to prove his case, examined two witnesses as PW-1 to PW-4 and got marked 24 documents, as per Exs.P-1 to P-24. Respondents have not lead any oral evidence but marked Ex.R1 - Xerox copy of TC.

¶39

4 -

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:46796 MFA No. 10 of 2020

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

The Tribunal after hearing both parties and

¶43

appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned

¶44

judgment, awarded the following amount of compensation:

¶45

Particulars	Amount in Rs.
Pain and sufferings	60,000
Medical expenses	3,000
Loss of future earnings due to disability	3,00,000
Conveyance, nourishment, food and attending charges	40,000
Loss of amenities and frustration	40,000
Total	4,43,000

¶46

8. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the claimant as well as the insurer.

¶47

9. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate; The Tribunal has not considered the income of the claimant properly and the disability assessed is also on the lower side; The compensation awarded under other heads are also on the lower side. Hence, prayed for enhancement of the compensation.

¶48

10. Learned counsel for respondent No.1-insurer submitted that the Tribunal has properly considered the case

¶49

5 -

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:46796 MFA No. 10 of 2020

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

of the claimant and has awarded a just and reasonable compensation, which does not call for any interference by this Court and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

¶53

11. Fact of the accident is not in dispute. The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence on record, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the offending bus, which is not in dispute by either side. Hence, there is no need to reconsider the same.

¶54

12. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that

¶55

claimant was a minor aged about 14 years at the time of the accident. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hitesh Naghibhai Patel vs., Bababhai Nagjibhai¹ , it was held that, even in such circumstances, compensation must be assessed on the basis of the income of the minor determined under the Minimum Wages Act, and the multiplier of ‘18’ shall be applied to assess compensation under the head of loss of future earning capacity due to permanent disability.

¶56

1 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10278 OF 2025

¶57

6 -

¶58

NC: 2025:KHC:46796 MFA No. 10 of 2020

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

13. In this case, the Tribunal relying on the judgment of Master Mallikarjun Vs. Divisional Manager, the National Insurance Company Limited² awarded Rs.3,00,000/- as global compensation under the head loss of future earning capacity due to permanent capacity, which needs recalculation, in view of law laid down in Hitesh's case (referred supra).

¶61

14. Learned counsel for respondent - insurer

¶62

vehemently contended that looking at the facts of the referredcase the victim sustained grievous injuries resulting in 90% of permanent disability, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that in such circumstances, income has to be taken on the basis of Minimum Wages Act. The said principle of law is not applicable to the facts of present case. Hence, prayed to reject the said contention.

¶63

15. Learned counsel for respondent f urther contended

¶64

that the claimant was a student from a village in Tumakuru District. At most, his income may be taken as Rs. 12,500 per

¶65

2 2013 ACJ 2445

¶66

7 -

¶67

NC: 2025:KHC:46796 MFA No. 10 of 2020

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

month, as per the chart prepared on the basis of the Minimum Wages Act. He further contends that since the claimant was aged about 14 years, the multiplier shall be considered as '15' instead of '18' and on that basis, the Court may award the compensation. If the claimant is entitled for the same. The learned counsel for claimant agreed to take income of the claimant at Rs.12,500/- per month.

¶70

In the case of Hitesh (referred above), the victim was aged 8 years, but in the present case, the age of the victim was 14 years. The Hon'ble Apex Court decided the said case relying on its previous judgments and held that in case of permanent disability sustained by minor, his notional income has to be assessed on the basis of minimum wages applicable to the particular period and multiplier shall be applied as '18' and on that basis compensation shall be awarded.

¶71

In paragraph Nos.15 and 16 of Hitesh's case (referred supra) , observed as under:

¶72

"15. For the purpose of emphasis, it is again clarified here that when a Tribunal or the High Court in appeal, is

¶73

8 -

¶74

NC: 2025:KHC:46796 MFA No. 10 of 2020

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

concerned with the case involving a child having suffered injury or having passed away, the calculation of loss of income necessarily has to be made on the matric of minimum wages payable to a skilled worker in the respective State at the relevant point of time. It is our hope that this restatement helps avoiding such errors and thereby obviates the necessity of this Court’s interference, applying well-established principles of law.

¶77

16. We may also observe that, in general, i.e., accidents involving adults, we are often confronted with situations where the Minimum Wage Data is not readily available and every so often, the question that has been made up to this Court hinges only on the calculation of income. In that view of the matter and in the hope of reducing the claimants need to file appeals to this Court or even the High Court, we deem it appropriate to direct that in cases where the claimant has failed to furnish appropriate details of income or adequate proof thereof, it shall be the responsibility and obligation of the contesting party, more particularly the insurance company to furnish before the Tribunal the applicable minimum wage as duly issued by the concerned government."

¶78

Considering the contentions in both the side,

¶79

principle of law laid down in the case of Hitesh is applicable to the facts of present case. His income has to be assessed on the basis of Minimum Wages Act and multiplier shall be applied as '18'.

¶80

9 -

¶81

NC: 2025:KHC:46796 MFA No. 10 of 2020

¶82

HC-KAR

¶83

As rightly submitted by learned counsel for

¶84

respondents, the claimant is residing in a village in Tumakuru district. Therefore, in accordance with the notional income chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, the income of the claimant is taken as Rs. 12,500/- per month. The applicable multiplier in this case is ‘18’. The claimant has suffered 15% permanent disability. Accordingly, the loss of future earning capacity due to permanent disability is assessed as follows:(Rs.12,500×12×18×15%=Rs.4,05,000/-(as against Rs.3,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal).

¶85

20. The Tribunal has awarded just amount of compensation under the other heads. Therefore, it does not call for any interference by this Court. The claimant is entitled to enhancement of Rs.1,05,000/- in addition to the amount awarded by the Tribunal.

¶86

21. The claimant is also entitled to interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation.

¶87

10 -

¶88

NC: 2025:KHC:46796 MFA No. 10 of 2020

¶89

HC-KAR

¶90

22. Undisputedly, respondents are liable to pay the

¶91

same.

¶92

In the result, I proceed to pass the following:

¶93

ORDER

¶94

i) The Appeal is allowed in part .

¶95

ii) The judgment and award dated 24.09.2019, passed by the Additional Small Causes Judge and the MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH-13) in MVC No. 4768/2018 stands modified.

¶96

iii) The claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.1,05,000/-, with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization.

¶97

iv) The respondent No.1-Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within a period of six weeks from the date of award.

¶98