Kum Yogana R Vs Sri Bellaiah B

SINCE MINOR REP BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN AND FATHER SRI.RAJESH S, S/O SADASHIVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, RESIDING AT SANGABASVADODDI, MAYAGANAHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK, RAMANGARA DISTRICT - 562 128.

¶10

(BY SRI.K. SHANTHA RAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

…APPELLANT

¶13

SRI BELLAIAH B, S/O LATE BASAVAIAH, AGED MAJOR, RESIDING AT SRIRAMAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HEGGADADEVANAKOTE TALUK, H.D.KOTE, MYSORE DISTRICT - 562 163.

¶14

2 -

¶15

NC: 2026:KHC:14544 MFA No. 9405 of 2025

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

THE MANAGER,

¶18

UNIVERSAL SAMPO GEN.INS.LTD., NO.7, 2ND FLOOR, SHAN COMPLEX, 9TH MAIN, 6TH BLOCK, JAYANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 041.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY V/O/D 07.01.2026 NOTICE TO R1 D/W; SRI.B.C.SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶21

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT. 28.06.2025 PASSED IN MVC NO.365/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AND 1ST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT RAMANAGARA PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶22

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under

¶25

Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 28.06.2025 passed in MVC.No.365/2023, by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Ramanagara, seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶26

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:14544 MFA No. 9405 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.2Insurance Company. Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with.

¶29

The petitioner/injured, aged 2 years, met with an accident on 15.09.2023, and her father, as a natural guardian, filed a petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-. The Tribunal, after considering the entire evidence on record, granted compensation of Rs.3,35,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till the date

¶30

of deposit. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the present appeal is filed mainly contending that the petitioner/injured was aged 2 years at the time of the accident and PW.2 has assessed the permanent disability to an extent of 14% to the lower limb. She was a minor and the disability will come in the way of her day-to-day activities. The Apex Court in case of Master Ayush Vs. Baby Kajol and Baby Akshi, held that minimum wages

¶31

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:14544 MFA No. 9405 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

have to be considered for the purpose of calculation of the loss of future earnings and other heads. But the Tribunal has considered only 3% disability and it needs to be modified. She has taken treatment as an inpatient for four days. They spent Rs.2,50,000/-, but the Tribunal granted Rs.1,19,802/-, which is on lower side. The amount granted for pain and suffering is also on the lower side and interest is to be granted at the rate of 12%.

¶34

The learned counsel of the appellate relied upon

¶35

citation reported in Civil Appeal No.10278/2025

¶36

(Arising out of SLP(C)No.14444/2025) in the case Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel Vs Bababhai Nagjibhai

¶37

Rabari , in which it was held that minimum wages have to be considered for the purpose of calculation. But the Tribunal relied upon Mallikarjun Vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., and others reported in 2013 ACJ 2445 (DB) and considering the disability as 5%, granted an amount of Rs.1,00,000/for permanent physical disability. It also granted an

¶38

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:14544 MFA No. 9405 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for pain and suffering and other heads and Rs.15,000/- for inconvenience caused to the parents and medical expenses. The doctor-PW.2 is an Orthopaedic Surgeon, stated that petitioner/injured sustained fracture mid shaft right big toe proximal phalanx displaced (as per radiological report) fracture right bit toe 5cm x 3cm wound over the right bit toe proximal phalanx tendon injury. Further, on 15.09.2023 wound debridement, tendon repair, reduction and K-wiring right big toe were done. The Tribunal assessed the disability of the right lower limb at 14% and the whole body at 5%. It was observed by the doctor that fracture of the right big toe proximal phalanx had united and there was pain and stiffness of right big toe and the right big toe is marginally shorter than left big toe. Therefore, the Apex Court has considered the minimum wages and assessed the liability. But as it involves a child having suffered injury or having passed away, the calculation of loss of income necessarily

¶41

6 -

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:14544 MFA No. 9405 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

has to be made. In paragraph No.15 of the judgment of

¶45

Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel (supra), it reads as follows:

¶46

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

¶47

The petitioner/injured is a minor female child

¶48

aged 2 years at the time of the accident. She met with an accident in the year 2023 and the notional income is to be taken at Rs.16,000/- as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority and the multiplier is to be taken as '15'. The disability, 1/3^rd of 14% comes to 5%, which is rightly considered by the Tribunal.

¶49

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:14544 MFA No. 9405 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

Therefore, the loss of future earning capacity

¶52

comes to Rs.1,44,000/- (16,000×12×15×5%). The petitioner/injured was hospitalized for a period of four days and the Tribunal granted Rs.1,19,802/- towards medical expenses and the said amount is confirmed. The Tribunal granted Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and sufferings, amenities etc., and the said amount is confirmed. The parents of the petitioner/injured might not have attended any work for a period of two months to take care of their daughter and therefore the loss of income for the parents is taken as Rs.32,000/-.

¶53

7. Thus in all, compensation awarded by this Court is as below:

¶54

Sl.Nos.	Particulars	Amount in Rs.
1.	Loss of future earning capacity	1,44,000/-
2.	Medical expenses	1,19,802/-
3.	Pain and suffering	1,00,000/-
4.	Loss of income for the parents	32,000/-
	Total	3,95,802/-

¶55

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:14544 MFA No. 9405 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

Hence, the appellant-claimant is entitled for a

¶58

total compensation of Rs.3,95,802/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.

¶59

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶60

ORDER

¶61

i. The appeal is allowed in part.

¶62

ii. The judgment and award dated 28.06.2025 passed in MVC.No.365/2023 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Ramanagara, is modified.

¶63

iii. The claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.3,95,802/- along with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, instead of Rs.3,35,000/- granted by the tribunal.

¶64

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:14544 MFA No. 9405 of 2025

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

iv. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company has already deposited the award amount before the Tribunal. Therefore, respondent No.2/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of

¶67

Rs.60,802/- along with the interest at the rate of 6% within one month from the date of this order.

¶68

v. On such deposit, father of the petitioner/injured is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with interest accrued on the same, as he already incurred huge medical expenses.

¶69

Sd/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶70

KVR

¶71

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53

Kum Yogana R v. Sri Bellaiah B

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kum Yogana R v. Sri Bellaiah B

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

Smt. Saraswathamma, Vs Sri Kumar Singh M R

Jeevan D N Vs Dinesh K R

Adinarayana P N Vs Chandrashekar S

Smt Shama Vs Sri Srinivasa

Shri. Mukesh. G. M. Vs Rekha. M

Suleka Sarkar Vs Mounith K. R.