MR. MANEESH JOSHI vs THE MANAGER

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55617
MFA No. 5504 of 2019
R


CNR: KAHC010162732019



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


TH
DATED THIS THE 28 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5504 OF 2019(MV-I)

BETWEEN:

MR. MANEESH JOSHI
S/O. RAGHAVENDRA JOSHI,
AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS,
RD
R/AT NO.15, 3 CROSS,
PRASHANTHANAGAR,
DEVANAHALLI TOWN,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

PETITIONER IS MINOR
REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER
SRI RAGHAVENDRA JOSHI,
S/O BHEEMARAO JOSHI,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
RD
R/AT NO.15, 3 CROSS,
PRASHANTHANAGAR,
DEVANAHALLI - 562 110.

…APPELLANT
(BY SRI R SHAMA, ADVOCATE)











Digitally signed
by ANUSHA V
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
AND:

1. THE MANAGER
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INS. CO. LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE AT
PRESTIGE CORNICHE,
ND
62/1, 2 FLOOR, RICHMOND ROAD,
INFANTRY ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 025.

2. N. MANJUNATH
S/O NARAYANASWAMY,
R/AT NO.78,
KAMMASANDRA VILLAGE,
VIJAYAPURA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK - 562 110.

…RESPONDENTS
[BY SRI PRADEEP B., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI A.N.RADHA KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (AB)]

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55617
MFA No. 5504 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010162732019


THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.07.2018 PASSED IN MVC
NO.134/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DEVANAHALLI, BENGALURU RURAL
DISTRICT, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

ORAL JUDGMENT

Challenging judgment and award dated 09.07.2018
passed by V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Devanahalli
(' Tribunal '), in MVC no.134/2016, this appeal is filed.


2. Smt.Shama S.R., learned counsel for appellant
submitted that appeal was by claimant for enhancement of
compensation.


3. Brief facts leading to this appeal as stated are that
at 4:30 p.m. on 01.11.2016 when claimant, a young boy of 8
years was playing in front of his house, driver of Car no.KA-
43/M-8116 drove it in rash and negligent manner and it dashed
against claimant. In accident, claimant sustained fractures of

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55617
MFA No. 5504 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010162732019


right tibia and fibula. Despite treatment at Columbia Asia
Hospital, Hebbal, Bangalore, he did not recover fully and
sustained loss of permanent physical disability. Therefore,
claiming compensation he filed claim petition in MVC
no.134/2016 under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
( 'MV Act' ) against owner and insurer of car.


4. Despite service of notice, owner did not appear.
Only insurer opposed claim petition on all grounds. Based on
pleadings, Tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence.


5. Claimant along with Dr.D.J. Navinchand examined
as PWs.1 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P11. Respondent did not
led evidence.


6. On consideration, Tribunal held accident had
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of insured Car by its
driver and claimant was entitled for compensation. However, it
assessed inadequate compensation as follows and sought for
enhancement.
Sl. no. Particulars Amount
1. Loss of Amenities in liefe Rs.1,00,000/-
2. Medical Expenses Rs.6,250/-
3. Diet, nourishment and Rs.15,000/-

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55617
MFA No. 5504 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010162732019


conveyance, attendant charges
4. Loss of prospects in life Rs.50,000/-
5. Loss of future income Rs.33,750/-
6. Future medical expenses Rs.20,000/-
Rs.2,25,000/-


7. It was submitted that while assessing
compensation, Tribunal considered income of claimant as
Rs.15,000/- per annum and applied multiplier of '15'. It was
submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Hitesh
Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari and Anr .
[ 2025 INSC 1070 ] ( Hitesh 's case ) had held in case of injury
or death of minors/non-earning members, while assessing
compensation Tribunal had to consider their monthly income as
minimum wages payable to skilled worker in respective State at
relevant point of time and applied multiplier of '18'.


8. It was submitted that by Gazette Notification
dated 16.09.2016, Ministry of Labour, Government of
Karnataka, notified minimum wages in respect of various
categories of workers/employees, for skilled workers varied
from Rs.385/- to Rs.420/- and submitted that same should be
considered.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55617
MFA No. 5504 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010162732019



9. It was submitted that in accident, claimant had
sustained fracture of both bones of right tibia and fibula,
assessed by PW.2 to have caused limb disability of 45% due to
restriction of movement and 15% to whole body. Tribunal
considered loss of income at 15%, which was inadequate.


10. Learned counsel further submitted that future
prospects required to be added to income. It was submitted
that tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards pain
and suffering. Tribunal has erred in deducting amount received
by claimant under Mediclaim, while awarding compensation
towards medical expenses by relying on decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in case of New India Assurance Company
Limited v. Dolly Satish Gandhi & Anr. [ 2026 INSC 498 ]
( Dolly's case ). It was submitted that compensation awarded
under other heads loss of amenities, loss of prospects in life,
future medical expenses, diet, conveyance and attendant
charges were also on lower side. It was submitted that tribunal
also erred in not awarding compensation towards loss of
income to parents during treatment. On above ground, sought
for enhancement.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55617
MFA No. 5504 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010162732019



11. On other hand, Sri B.Pradeep, learned counsel for
respondent-insurer would oppose appeal. It was submitted that
tribunal had assessed compensation under various heads far in
excess of entitlement, even assessment of disability/loss of
earning capacity was on higher side and same would offset any
claim for enhancement.


12. It was further submitted that considering fact that
claimant was a minor, application of multiplier of '15' was
justified and decision in Hitesh's case ( supra ) was in facts and
circumstances of said case and would not be of universal
application. On above ground, sought for dismissal.


13. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned
judgment and record.


14. From above and since this appeal is by claimant
for enhancement of compensation only, point that would arise
for consideration is:
"Whether claimant is entitled for enhancement

of compensation, as prayed?"

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55617
MFA No. 5504 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010162732019



15. At outset, there is no dispute about occurrence of
accident involving insured vehicle due to rash and negligent
driving by driver, claimant sustaining grievous injuries/loss of
earning capacity and being entitled for compensation from
insurer are not in dispute. Only dispute is about quantum of
compensation.


16. In claim petition, it was stated that claimant was
a young school going boy of 8 years, who sustained fracture of
right tibia and fibula. Nothing was stated about his earning.
While passing impugned award, tribunal considered annual
income notionally at Rs.15,000/- by referring to II Schedule to
MV Act. Though notional income in case of minors varied for
Rs.15,000/- to Rs.30,000/- per month under various decisions,
in its recent decision in case of Hitesh (supra), Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that for purposes of assessing monthly
income of non-earning member, reference has to be made to
Notification of minimum wages in respect of State at relevant
period and minimum wages indicated for skilled worker has to
be considered as income. It also held that multiplier applicable
would be '18'. Notification dated 16.09.2016 is as follows:

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55617
MFA No. 5504 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010162732019

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55617
MFA No. 5504 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010162732019

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55617
MFA No. 5504 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010162732019

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55617
MFA No. 5504 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010162732019




17. In instant case, claimants/appellants are from
Devanahalli, which is a Town Municipal area not included within
Bengaluru urban agglomeration or is a District Headquarter.
Therefore, it would have to be considered as falling in Zone-III,

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55617
MFA No. 5504 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010162732019


minimum wages would be Rs.385/- and which for 26 days of a
month would be Rs.10,010/-. Same has to be considered as
monthly income. Since in Hitesh's case (supra) as well as
Erudhaya Priya v. State Express Transport Corporation
Ltd. reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 601 , Hon'ble Supreme
Court has directed addition of future prospects even in personal
injury claimants and applying principles in case of National
Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others ,
reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 future prospects at 40% has to
be added.


18. Insofar as assessment of disability, PW.2 in his
deposition has stated that on clinical examination on
06.06.2018, claimant had restriction of movement of right knee
and right knee flexion by 5%, right ankle dorsi flexion by 6%,
right ankle plantar flexion by 6%, right foot aversion by 8%
and right foot inversion by 8% and totally to 15% to whole
body. In cross-examination, however, it is elicited that both
fractures are united and there is no shortening. There is also no
observation about fractures being malunited. Under above
circumstances, assessment of disability by PW.2 appears on
higher side.

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55617
MFA No. 5504 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010162732019



19. It is also elicited that due to young age of
claimant, there was speedy recovery. Under above
circumstances, assessment of disability by PW.2 is on higher
side and found appropriate to re-assess it at 10%. Thus,
compensation towards future loss of income would be
Rs.3,02,702/- [Rs.10,010/- + Rs.4,004/- (Rs.10,010/- x
40%) = Rs.14,014/- x 10% x 12 x 18]. Tribunal has not
awarded any compensation towards pain and suffering, but has
awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of
amenities and Rs.50,000/- towards loss of prospects in life,
which would not be justified. Since assessment of
compensation by tribunal under various heads has caused dis-
satisfaction to claimant, it is proper to re-assess entire
compensation.


20. Considering fact that claimant has sustained
fracture of tibia and fibula, it is found appropriate to award
Rs.40,000/- towards pain and suffering. Tribunal has not
awarded compensation towards loss of income of parents
during treatment of claimant. Taking period of layoff as three
months and taking minimum wages into consideration,
Rs.30,000/- is awarded towards loss of income during laid-up

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55617
MFA No. 5504 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010162732019


period. Claimant has taken inpatient treatment for only five
days. Though PW.2 stated that claimant came to him for review
on four occasions, award of Rs.15,000/- towards diet,
nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges would be
excessive and found appropriate to reduce it to Rs.10,000/- .
As noted above, award of compensation towards loss of
amenities and loss of prospects in life would not be justified.
Considering age of claimant and extent of disability, it is found
appropriate to award Rs.30,000/- towards loss of amenities.
Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/- towards future medical
expenses, but no further medical bills after award have been
produced and in absence of same, there would be no scope for
modification.


21. Learned counsel for petitioner would be justified in
submitting that Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dolly's case, has
held denial of amount reimbursed under medi-claim while
assessing medical expenses would not be justified. Records
would indicate that official receipt no.RPT-1628048 dated
04.11.2016, indicates that total amount payable was
Rs.1,01,013/- and balance amount of Rs.98,250/- would be
payable.

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55617
MFA No. 5504 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010162732019



22. Applying ratio in Dolly's case, it is found
appropriate to award Rs.1,01,013/- towards medical expenses.
Thus, total compensation would be Rs.5,33,715 /-. Hence,
point for consideration is answered partly in affirmative.


23. Consequently, following:
ORDER

i. Appeal is allowed in part , judgment and
award dated 09.07.2018 passed by V
Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Devanahalli, in MVC no.134/2016 is modified
and claimant is entitled for re-assessed
compensation of Rs.5,33,715 /- as against
Rs.2,25,000/- awarded by tribunal. Same shall
carry interest at 6% p.a. from date of claim
petition till deposit excluding period of 359
days being delay in filing appeal.

ii. Respondent - insurer is liable to pay same and
is directed to deposit enhanced compensation
before tribunal within six weeks.

iii. On deposit, 50% of enhanced compensation
amount along with interest is ordered to be

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55617
MFA No. 5504 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010162732019


released in favour of claimant, by electronic
means, with liberty to seek release of
remaining 50% also, in case it is required for
higher studies or for marriage purposes.

Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE



GRD,HNM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14