Master Prajwal N H Vs the Manager

MASTER PRAJWAL N H, S/O S H NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS, NO.61/2 1ST MAIN ROAD, MUNIPAPANNA BUILDING, SIDDAPURA, BENGALURU NORTH, WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU-560 066.

¶10

PETITIONER BEING MINOR REP. BY HIS FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SRI S H NAGAPPA S/O SHIVARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI

¶13

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

(BY SRI. VIJAY KUMAR T., ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INS.CO.LTD., NO.29 CENTENARY BUILDING EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR, NEAR CITI BANK, M G ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶17

KRISHNAPPA R S/O RAMAIAH AGED MAJOR R/AT NO.208, 7TH CROSS,

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:13836 MFA No. 5319 of 2024

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

NALLURAHALLI VILLAGE, WHITE FIELD POST, BENGALURU-560 066.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNAREDDY N.A., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B. PRADEEP., ADVOCATE FOR R1,)

¶23

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.12.2023 PASSED IN MVC NO.670/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDGE, ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU 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 MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award 06.12.2023 passed in MVC No.670/2020 on the file of the II Additional Judge, ACMM, Court Of Small Causes, Bengaluru , for enhancing the compensation.

¶27

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants and respondent. The ranks of the parties are retained as per tribunal for the sake of convenience.

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:13836 MFA No. 5319 of 2024

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

The injured claimant aged 13 years met with an accident on 14.11.2019 and his father as natural guardian filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.25 lakhs. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record granted an amount of Rs.14,90,242/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from date of petition till realisation.

¶31

Aggrieved by the said order, he preferred an appeal and mainly contended that PW3/doctor assessed the permanent disability to the whole body as 80%. It is stated that he sustained left leg crush injury and there was above knee amputation lower third left lower limb is 80%, but the tribunal has erred in taking his income as Rs.30,000/- per annum which is on lower side. Further, he relied upon the citation reported by Hon’ble Apex Court

¶32

in SCC OnLine SC 983 in case of Jithendran V/s. New India Assurance Co. ltd., and requested this court to consider the functional disability as 100% and also relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in New India Assurance Company Vs. Abdul S/o Mehaboob

¶33

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:13836 MFA No. 5319 of 2024

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

Tahasildar in MFA No.103807/2016 C/w. MFA Nos.103835/2016 & 103807/2018 in which it was held that when disability is more than 20%, the injured is entitled for future prospects. Further, contended that the amount granted under loss of income during treatment period to his parents is meager and only Rs.3 lakhs is granted towards artificial limbs and thus requested for enhancement of compensation.

¶36

Heard the arguments of respondent counsel and respondent counsel contended that tribunal granted excessive amount under pain and suffering, loss of amenities and future medical expenses and it is to be reduced.

¶37

As the petitioner met with an accident in the year 2019, his notional income is to be taken as Rs.14,000/- as per the chart prepared by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. As he was aged 12 years at the time of the accident, multiplier 15 is to be considered. The doctor stated that he sustained crush injury of left leg. On

¶38

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:13836 MFA No. 5319 of 2024

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

examination, it was found that the petitioner has above knee amputation as per the recent x-ray of left thigh and he assessed the above knee amputation of the left lower limb as 80%. Further, stated that he requires prosthesis and the cost of the same may vary from Rs.2,00,000 to Rs.4,00,000. It was elicited in the cross-examination that he was not a treated doctor and he admitted that implants are in situ and petitioner was not using artificial limb at the time of examination. If he uses artificial limb, he can do day to day activities with some difficulty. Therefore, considering the medical evidence, this court finds it reasonable to take the disability as 80% and he is entitled for 20% towards future prospects. Loss of future earning capacity comes to Rs.14,000 + 40% X 12 X 15 X 80% = Rs.28,22,400/-. Pain and suffering is Rs.2,00,000/-. Loss of amenities is Rs.2,00,000/ - including future prospects of marriage. The amounts granted by the tribunal under the other heads are confirmed as they are just and reasonable. Further, Rs.2,86,242/- is granted

¶41

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:13836 MFA No. 5319 of 2024

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

for medical expenses and Rs.3,00,000/- future medical

¶44

expenses including artificial limb.

¶45

Thus in all, components awarded by this court are

¶46

as below,

¶47

Sl.Nos.	Particulars	Amount in Rs.
1	Loss of future earning capacity	28,22,400
2	Pain and suffering	2,00,000
3	Loss of amenities	2,00,000
4	Medical expenses	2,86,242
5	Future medical expenses	3,00,000
	Total	38,08,642

¶48

Hence, the compensation granted by tribunal is enhanced from Rs.14,90,242/- to Rs.38,08,642 /- along

¶49

with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.

¶50

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶51

ORDER

¶52

i. Appeal is allowed in part.

¶53

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:13836 MFA No. 5319 of 2024

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

ii. The judgment and award dated 06.12.2023 passed in MVC No.670/2020 on the file of the II Additional Judge, ACMM, Court Of Small Causes, Bengaluru, is modified.

¶56

iii. The claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 38,08,642/- along with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, instead of Rs.14,90,242/granted by the tribunal.

¶57

iv. Respondent/Insurance Company has already deposited the awarded amount before the tribunal. Therefore, respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.23,18,400/- along with the interest at the rate of 6% within one month from the date of this order.

¶58

8 -

¶59

NC: 2026:KHC:13836 MFA No. 5319 of 2024

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

v. On such deposit, claimant is permitted to

¶62

withdraw the entire amount along with interest accrued on the same.

¶63

vi. On 30.08.2025, the delay of 113 days is condoned by this Court on the condition that the claimant will not be entitled for the interest in case of enhancement. Hence, Insurance company is not liable to pay the interest for the delayed period.

¶64

Sd/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶65

AKV CT:NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 70

Master Prajwal N H v. the Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Master Prajwal N H v. the Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Manager Vs Lokesh T N

Sri.Rajachari H .S. Vs Sri.Mahesh S.P.

Manjashetty Vs Shridara J

R Sharmila Vs Sri Devkumar B

S K Yashika Vs G N Ranganatha

Rudreshgowda Vs Kumaraswamy