Kum H N Deekshitha Alias Deeksha Vs Sri Kumar P

KUM H N DEEKSHITHA ALIAS DEEKSHA D/O H V NARAYANASWAMY NOW AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS REP BY HER MOTHER/ NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT VARALAKSHMI W/O H V NARAYANASWAMY NOW AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶12

BOTH RESIDING AT HOLURU VILLAGE AND POST KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶13

…APPELLANT

¶14

Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

(BY SRI. GOPAL KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAVINDRA P, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

1. SRI KUMAR P

¶18

S/O PUTTASWAMY NOW AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.95 2^ND CROSS, UPPER HUTHA NEAR NANDI TEMPLE GOLDEN JIBILEE COLONY BHADRAVATHI TOWN SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT, PIN CODE-577301.

¶19

2 -

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

NC: 2026:KHC:36943 MFA No. 8330 of 2022

¶22

CNR: KAHC010567942022

¶23

M/S NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE MISSION ROAD BENGALURU-560027 REP. BY ITS MANAGER

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. A.M. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶26

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.28.11.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.6405/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MEMBER, PRL. MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶27

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

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶29

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶30

The claimant, being dissatisfied with the compensation of Rs.1,44,500/- awarded by the Tribunal in MVC.No.6405/2017

¶31

vide judgment and award dated 28.11.2019, is in appeal.

¶32

The fact that the accident occurred and the further fact

¶33

that the offending vehicle was insured are not in dispute.

¶34

The Tribunal, on assessment of evidence, has awarded the following sums as compensation:

¶35

3 -

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:36943 MFA No. 8330 of 2022

¶38

CNR: KAHC010567942022

¶39

Sl. No.	Particulars	Amount in(Rs.)
1.	Pain and sufferings	60,000
2.	Medical expenses	4,500
3.	Attendant, conveyance and other expenses	10,000
4.	Loss of amenities in life	50,000
5.	Future medical expenses	20,000
	Total	1,44,500

¶40

Learned counsel for the claimant would contend that though the claimant had suffered disability, the Tribunal has erred in not assessing the loss of future income and that the amount awarded under other heads is also meager. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal by enhancing the compensation.

¶41

On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurer supports the impugned judgment and award and prays for dismissal of the appeal.

¶42

4 -

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

NC: 2026:KHC:36943 MFA No. 8330 of 2022

¶45

CNR: KAHC010567942022

¶46

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record.

¶47

As could be seen from records, Ex.P.12-wound certificate discloses that the claimant has suffered fracture of right tibia and fracture of right pubic rami. The evidence of the Doctor reveals that the claimant has suffered 28.87% to the left lower limb and whole body disability at 9.6%. Having regard to the nature of injuries suffered by the claimant and the age of the claimant, I deem it just and appropriate to assess the disability at 7% .

¶48

The Tribunal has not awarded compensation under the head 'loss of future income'. Since the claimant was minor aged 12 years at the time of incident and that the disability is now assessed at 7%, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of HITESH NAGJIBHAI PATEL Vs. BABABHAI

¶49

NAGJIBHAI RABARI AND ANOTHER in Civil Appeal No.10278/2025, wherein it is held that the calculation of loss of income necessarily has to be made in a case involving a child

¶50

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:36943 MFA No. 8330 of 2022

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

CNR: KAHC010567942022

¶53

having suffered injury or having passed away, it would be just and appropriate to award the compensation towards loss of future income. Consequently, since the accident was of the year 2017, it would be appropriate to assess the income at Rs.11,000/- as per the chart prepared by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. Accordingly, applying the multiplier of '18', the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.1,66,320/- (Rs.11,000 x 12 x 18 x 7%) towards 'loss of future income' .

¶54

The sums awarded under other heads, being just and proper, do not require any interference.

¶55

Consequently, the award of the Tribunal is modified and

¶56

the claimant would be entitled to the following compensation:

¶57

Sl. No.	Compensation under different Heads	As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.)	As awarded by this Court (Rs.)
1.	Pain and sufferings	60,000	60,000
2.	Loss of future income due to disability	Nil	1,66,320
3.	Attendant, conveyance and other misc. expenses	10,000	10,000
4.	Medical expenses	4,500	4,500
5.	Loss of amenities	50,000	50,000

¶58

6 -

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

NC: 2026:KHC:36943 MFA No. 8330 of 2022

¶61

CNR: KAHC010567942022

¶62

6.	Future medical expenses	20,000	20,000
	Total	1,44,500	3,10,820

¶63

Thus, the claimant is held entitled to the total compensation of Rs.3,10,820/- as against Rs.1,44,500/-, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization.

¶64

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount

¶65

of compensation awarded within six weeks from the date of

¶66

receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶67

The appeal is accordingly allowed in part .

¶68

SD/(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

¶69

PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0

Kum H N Deekshitha Alias Deeksha v. Sri Kumar P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kum H N Deekshitha Alias Deeksha v. Sri Kumar P

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

Rajagopalacharya Vs C K Srinivasa

Sri B N Harish Vs Mr Manjunatha v

Avinash Vs B Siddiprasad M Shenoy

Smt Varalakshmi Vs Sri Kumar P

Sri H v Narayanaswamy Vs Sri Kumar P

Smt Sarojamma Vs Mr Manjunath