Partly allowed

Master Mohammed Althaf v. Mr Hasanabba Sheikh

Karnataka HC10 Jun 2025MFA/1764/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this First Miscellaneous Appeal under the Motor Vehicles Act, the High Court of Karnataka enhanced compensation awarded to a minor pillion rider injured in a bus accident. Applying the principle from Master Mallikarjun, the court awarded global compensation plus medical expenses and directed payment of interest.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs. 2,58,000/- with interest at 6% p.a.; disturbed interest on Rs. 32,400/- for loss of earning capacity.

Master Mohammed Althaf Vs Mr Hasanabba Sheikh — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:19561 MFA No. 1764 of 2013

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1764 OF 2013(MV-I)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MASTER MOHAMMED ALTHAF @ ALTHAF S/O AHMED BAVA AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS R/AT AISHA MANZIL SITE NO.181, 9^TH BLOCK KRISHNAPURA MANGALORE TALUK-575 002.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. GURUPRASAD B.R., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

MR. HASANABBA SHEIKH S/O K.K.SHEIKABBA AGED 42 YEARS R/AT H.A.MANZIL NEAR MOSQUE, SHIRVA MANCHAKALLU UDUPI TALUK-574 116.

¶15

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. 2^ND FLOOR, SRI RAM ARCADE H.P.ROAD, UDUPI LOCAL OFFICE:DIVISIONAL OFFICE 2^ND FLOOR, GANESH BAZAAR BUILDING G.H.S.ROAD, MANGALORE TALUK MANGALORE-575 001.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS (VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 07.07.2015, NOTIC E TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH; SRI. Y.K.SHESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:19561 MFA No. 1764 of 2013

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.08.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.172/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT AND III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MANGALORE, D.K, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶20

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant against the judgment and award dated 08.08.2021 passed in M.V.C.No.172/2011 by the learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge & Member, MACT, D.K., Mangaluru.

¶24

Brief facts of the case of the claimant are that, on 02.05.2010 the claimant was going on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-19W-9066 as pillion rider and the deceased Abdul Rahiman @ Abdulla was rider of the said vehicle. They met with an accident on NH-17 of Haleyangadi village of Mangalore Taluk due the rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing registration No.KA-20B-1978 by its driver. As a result of which, both sustained grievous injuries and the said Abdul Rahiman succumbed to the injuries on the spot. The claimant

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:19561 MFA No. 1764 of 2013

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

was admitted to Unity Hospital, Mangalore and he had taken treatment as an inpatient from 02.05.2010 to 12.05.2010 and spent huge amount towards medical expenses. He was aged about 16 years at the time of the accident and was earning Rs.3,000/- per month. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he had suffered permanent disability. With these reasons, he prayed to award compensation.

¶28

Respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending bus. Respondent No.2 denied the contents of the claim petition. It is further contended by the insurer that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the rider of the motorcycle. It was also contended that the claim petition has to be barred for nonjoinder of necessary parties. With these reasons, respondent No.2 prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

¶29

It appears that MVC Nos.1396/2010 and 172/2011 were clubbed together. Common evidence was recorded and disposed of by a common judgment. Claimants in both the cases together examined five witnesses as PWs.1 to 5 and marked Exs.P1 to P21. Respondent No.2 has not led any oral

¶30

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:19561 MFA No. 1764 of 2013

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

evidence but marked one document Ex.R1. After hearing both the parties and appreciating the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. The Tribunal assessed the age of the claimant as 13 to 15 years, assessed his notional income as Rs.3,000/- p.m., applied multiplier 18 and assessed permanent disability as 5% to the whole body, though the medial board had assessed the permanent disability as 40% to the left lower limb and in all awarded compensation of Rs.1,42,400/-.

¶33

5. The Tribunal has awarded the compensation amount under the following heads:

¶34

a)	Pain and Sufferings	Rs.30,000/-
b)	Medical Expenses	Rs.75,000/-
c)	Food, extra nourishment & attendant charges	Rs.4,000/-
d)	Loss of future income due to disability	Rs.32,400/-
e)	Conveyance charges	Rs.1,000/-
	Total	Rs.1,42,400/-

¶35

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:19561 MFA No. 1764 of 2013

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

The appellant having found the said compensation is inadequate filed the present appeal for enhancement of compensation.

¶38

Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side. Considering the information given by the medical board, the Tribunal ought to have assessed permanent disability to an extent of 15% to the whole body instead of 5%. The claimant has produced the medical bills worth Rs.1,24,541/- as per Ex.P21. PW.3 is father of the claimant. He was an illiterate, therefore he was not able to answer in respect of certain medical bills. Considering the same, the Tribunal awarded Rs.75,000/- towards medical expenses. When the receipts are placed on record, the Tribunal ought to have accepted the same and awarded the just compensation. He further contended that the income of the claimant assessed by the Tribunal is on lower side. Even if the notional income is accepted as per the chart prepared by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, it would be Rs.5,500/- p.m. He further contended that the other amount of compensation awarded is

¶39

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:19561 MFA No. 1764 of 2013

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

meagre and no amount of compensation is awarded towards loss of amenities. Therefore, he prays for enhancement of compensation.

¶42

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently contended that the Tribunal has properly appreciated the material on record and awarded just and reasonable amount of compensation. In the impugned judgment, the Tribunal has given justifiable reason for awarding the said amount of compensation. It is the case of claimant that he was working with deceased Abdul Rahiman in mango plucking while also pursuing his studies, and was earning Rs.3,000/- p.m. Therefore, the respondents cannot now contend that, as per the chart prepared by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, the claimant's notional income was Rs.5,500/- p.m. Such a contention is not permissible. He further contended that though medical receipts are produced, they were not believable as the amount of medical expenses was exorbitant. Even the disability given by the medical board is also exorbitant. Therefore, no justifiable reason for interfering with the judgment and award of the Tribunal and thereby prays for dismissal of the appeal.

¶43

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:19561 MFA No. 1764 of 2013

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

Learned counsel for the appellant in reply submits that claimant was aged about 15 to 16 years at the time of accident. As per the medical board, he has been suffering from permanent disability to an extent of 40%. Even 1/3^rd of the same is taken as disability to whole body, then it will be more than 10%. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Master Mallikarjun Vs. Divisional Manager, the National Insurance Company Limited & Another¹ held that in such cases, in addition to actual medical bill the global compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- shall be awarded. The principle of law awarded in the said case is applicable to facts of the present case and on the basis of the same, compensation be awarded at the rate of Rs.3,00,000/- along with medical expenses of Rs.1,24,541/-.

¶46

Learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the law laid down in the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case and on that basis, compensation need not be enhanced.

¶47

1 2014(14)SCC 396

¶48

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:19561 MFA No. 1764 of 2013

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

The only question that arises for my consideration is as under;

¶52

"Whether the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation?"

¶53

Undisputedly, the claimant sustained injuries in a vehicle accident. According to the material on records which is discussed in the impugned judgment, the claimant was studying in SSLC/10^th Std. He has produced Ex.P19 which discloses that he was aged about 16 years at the time accident. Ex.P17 is given by Disability Board of Government Wenlock Hospital, Mangalore, indicates that the claimant had suffered permanent disability of 40% to the left lower limb. Considering the said disability stated by PW.5, disability to the whole body could be considered at 10%.

¶54

Claimant was admittedly minor at the time of accident. Therefore, the law laid down in the case of Master Mallikarjun (referred supra) by the Hon’ble Apex Court could made applicable to the present case and global compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- to be awarded on all the heads except medical expenses.

¶55

¶56

NC: 2025:KHC:19561 MFA No. 1764 of 2013

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

The Tribunal after detailed discussions disbelieved the amount of Rs.24,000/- spent towards medical expenses. Even if it is deducted, admissible amount must to be Rs.1,00,000/-, the same could be awarded to the claimant. Accordingly, the claimant is entitled for Rs.3,00,000/towards global compensation and in addition to that Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses, totally Rs.4,00,000/- and hence, the claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.2,57,600/- rounded off to Rs.2,58,000/-. Undisputedly, respondent No.2 is liable to pay the said amount of compensation.

¶59

The claimant is also entitled for interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation.

¶60

The Tribunal without any justifiable reason denied the interest on Rs.32,400/- which is awarded towards loss of future earning capacity due to disability. The reason assigned by the Tribunal is not proper and justifiable. The claimant is entitled for interest on the said amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. For the aforesaid discussions, I answer the above

¶61

10 -

¶62

NC: 2025:KHC:19561 MFA No. 1764 of 2013

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

question partly in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶65

ORDER

¶66

i. The appeal is allowed in part ;

¶67

ii. The impugned judgment and award dated 08.08.2012 passed in MVC No.172/2011 on the file of III Addl. Senior Civil Judge & Member, MACT, Mangalore, D.K. is modified;

¶68

iii. The claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.2,58,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of petition till its realization;

¶69

iv. The claimant is also entitled for interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the compensation amount of Rs.32,400/- which was awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of future earning capacity due to disability from the date of petition till its realization;

¶70

11 -

¶71

NC: 2025:KHC:19561 MFA No. 1764 of 2013

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

v. Respondent No.2 shall deposit the said amount within a period of six weeks from the date of award;

¶74

vi. Remaining portion of the award is not disturbed;

¶75

vii. Send back the TCR along with copy of the judgment to trial Court. It shall also be noted in the letter to be sent with the TCR that the entire TCR is not received by this Court.

¶76

Sd/(UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE

¶77

PGG

¶78

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13

Master Mohammed Althaf v. Mr Hasanabba Sheikh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Master Mohammed Althaf v. Mr Hasanabba Sheikh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ningaraju @ Lingaraju @ Swamy Vs Mystic Investments

Sri Harish T K Vs Vinod

Smt Roopa Vs M/S National Insu Co. Ltd.

Cholamandalam Ms General Vs Annaiah

Kum Deeksha J Vs Mahesh Kumar

Mr Praviraj Shetty Vs Mr Darshan