Kum Monika Vs Divisional Manager

KUM MONIKA D/O. VASU AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS SINCE MINOR, REP. BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER BY NAME SMT. JAYALAKSHMI, W/O. VASU R/O. NATARAJU DARASAGUPPE VILLAGE K. SHETTAHALLI HOBLI S.R. PATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH N D., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA

¶14

DIVISIONAL MANAGER K.S.R.T.C. MANDYA DIVISION MANDYA UNIT MANDYA-571 401. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. NAGARAJ K, ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 18.09.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.1216/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, M.A.C.T., SRIRANGAPATNA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:34028 MFA No. 907 of 2020

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

The claimant, being dissatisfied with the

¶23

compensation of Rs.2,31,875/- awarded by the Tribunal, is in appeal.

¶24

The fact that the accident occurred and the further fact that the offending vehicle belong to respondent-KSRTC are not in dispute.

¶25

The Tribunal, on assessment of evidence, has

¶26

awarded the following sums as compensation:

¶27

Sl. No.	Particulars	Amount in (Rs.)
1.	Permanent Disability	1,00,000
2.	Medical Expenses	94,874
3.	Food and Attendant Charges	22,000
4.	Future Medical Expenses	15,000
	Total	2,31,874
	Rounded off to	2,31,875

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:34028 MFA No. 907 of 2020

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

The Tribunal, on an analysis of the medical evidence, has concluded that the claimant has suffered whole body disability to the extent of 9%.

¶32

I have perused the evidence of the Doctor-PW.4 and the wound certificate-Ex.P15. The same depicts that the claimant has sustained injury on her right lower limb, pain and swelling over the right knee joint and difficulty to do the movements.

¶33

Since the Doctor has assessed the permanent disability at 26.56% to the particular portion of the body, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the disability at 9% to the whole body. Accordingly, the disability suffered by the claimant would be at 9%.

¶34

The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head of loss of future income on the ground that the claimant was a minor aged about 7 years at the time of the accident. However, considering that the claimant had suffered 26.56% permanent disability, the Tribunal, placing reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Master Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, The National

¶35

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:34028 MFA No. 907 of 2020

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

Insurance Company Ltd., and another reported in ILR 2013 KAR 4891 , awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards permanent disability. The said finding of the Tribunal calls for interference in view of the subsequent judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari and Another, (2025 INSC 1070), wherein it has been held that in the case of the death or injury of the minor, the future loss of income has to be considered with an appropriate multiplier. The paragraph No.9 of the said judgment reads as follows:

¶38

“9 . On the aspect of monthly income of the minor appellant, we are inclined to interfere with the judgment and order of the Courts below. In the present case, it is evident that the Courts below have failed to take into account the monthly income of the appellant while determining the quantum of compensation. It is now a well-entrenched and consistently reiterated principle of law that a minor child who suffers death or permanent disability in a motor vehicle accident, cannot be placed in the same category as a non-earning individual for the purposes of assessing the amount of compensation because the child was not engaged in gainful employment at the time of the accident. In such a case, the computation of compensation under the head of loss

¶39

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:34028 MFA No. 907 of 2020

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

of income ought to be made by adopting, at the very least, the minimum wages payable to a skilled workman as notified for the relevant period in the respective State where the cause of action arises. The said observation was rendered by this Court, in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and Ors. , and Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Anr. ”

¶42

As such, placing reliance of the above said judgment, the compensation in respect of loss of future income has to be awarded by considering the age, injuries sustained by the claimant and other aspects.

¶43

In the present case, since the accident is of the year 2016, it is appropriate to take the notional income as per the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority i.e. Rs.9,500/per month. The said amount is therefore taken as the notional income of the claimant. Considering that the claimant was aged 7 years at the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier applicable is ‘15’. Accordingly, the compensation towards ' loss of future income ' works out to Rs.1,53,900/- (Rs.9,500 x 12 x 15 x 9%), as against the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head of ‘permanent disability’ .

¶44

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:34028 MFA No. 907 of 2020

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

Having regard to the length of the stay of the claimant in the hospital and having regard to the injuries suffered, it would be just and appropriate to treat the laid up period as 3 months. Thus, the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.28,500/- (9,500 x 3 months) towards 'loss of income during the laid up period' .

¶47

Having regard to the lasting effects of the injuries on the claimant, the claimant would also be entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards ‘loss of amenities’ .

¶48

Having regard to the injuries suffered by the claimant, the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards 'pain and suffering' .

¶49

The compensation of Rs.94,874/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head of 'medical expenses', Rs.22,000/- under the head of ‘food and attendant charges’ and Rs.15,000/- under the head of 'future medical expenses', are unaltered as the same are adequate.

¶50

Consequently, the claimant would be entitled to the following compensation:

¶51

7 -

¶52

NC: 2026:KHC:34028 MFA No. 907 of 2020

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

Sl. No.	Compensation under different Heads	As awarded by the Tribunal	As awarded by this Court
		(Rs.)	(Rs.)
1.	Loss of Future Income	1,00,000	1,53,900
2.	Medical Expenses	94,874	94,874
3.	Food and Attendant Charges	22,000	22,000
4.	Future Medical Expenses	15,000	15,000
5.	Loss of amenities	-	20,000
6.	Pain and Sufferings	-	40,000
7.	Loss of earning during laid up period	-	28,500
	Total	2,31,874	3,74,274
	Rounded off	2,31,875	3,74,275

¶55

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶56

ORDER

¶57

a) The appeal is allowed in part .

¶58

b) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶59

c) The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.3,74,275/- as against Rs.2,31,875/-, along with interest from the date of petition till its realization.

¶60

8 -

¶61

NC: 2026:KHC:34028 MFA No. 907 of 2020

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

d) In view of judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ms.Joyeeta Bose and others –vVenkateshan.V and others (MFA 5896/2018 and connected matters disposed of on 24.8.2020), the enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6% per annum.

¶64

e) The respondent-Corporation is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

¶65

Sd/(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

¶66

HA

¶67

LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 30

Kum Monika v. Divisional Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kum Monika v. Divisional 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt Geetha Prabhu Vs M/S Kumbla Ramdas Rangappa Nayak Memorial Trust

Mr. G Srinivas Vs Sri R Srinivasa

Sri C M Ramachandra Vs Sri R Govindraj

The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Vs Smt. Thimmamma

Smt. Shantha Vs Smt. Nagamma

Lalithamma Vs Ganesh