VEERESHA vs MAHABHADRAPPA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60108-DB
RP No. 416 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010513102026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 29 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
R
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
AND
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
REVIEW PETITION NO.416 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
VEERESHA
S/O KATALINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
STUDENT AND AGRICULTURIST,
R/AT GUNDIMADU GOLLARAHATTY VILLAGE
HOLALKERE TALUK-577 526.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI.R.SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MAHABHADRAPPA
S/O VEERABHADRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
OWNER OF VEHICLE
BEARING NO.KA-16/B-3367,
R/O MALLIKARJUNA MOTOR SERVICE,
GANDHI NAGARA,
CHALLAKERE TOWN-577 522.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
ST
1 FLOOR, A.M.ARCADE,
NEAR VIDHYARTHI BHAVAN,
C.G.HOSPITAL ROAD,
DAVANAGERE-577 001.
Digitally signed by
JAI JYOTHI J
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENTS
(R2 SERVED)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 1 READ
WITH SECTION 114 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908, PRAYING
1
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60108-DB
RP No. 416 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010513102026
TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.06.2026 PASSED
IN M.F.A.NO.6211/2018 (MV-I) BY ALLOWING THIS REVIEW
PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS REVIEW PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
and
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU)
1. The present review petition is filed seeking review of
the judgment passed by this Court dated 22.06.2026 in
MFA No.6211/2018(MV-I).
2. There is no appearance on behalf of respondent No.2
despite service.
3. The challenge in the present review petition is limited
to non-award of future prospects.
4. This Court, by its order dated 17.08.2026 had while
issuing notice in the matter directed as follows:
"2. Learned counsel for the review petitioner
submits that although the amounts were awarded,
while calculating loss of ‘future earnings’, ‘future
prospects’ was inadvertently not set out. Reliance is
placed by the learned counsel on the judgment under
2
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60108-DB
RP No. 416 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010513102026
review in the case of Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel vs.
1
Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari And Another .
3. Since there is no breach of Insurance Policy alleged
and the judgment under review is only on the aspect
of compensation, Notice shall only issue to the
Insurance Company."
5. Learned Counsel for the review petitioner submits
that only a minor inadvertent error has crept in, inasmuch
as the injured was 17 years old and that 40% future
prospects which ought to have been awarded at the time
of calculating loss of future earnings due to disability,
have not been awarded.
6. Learned Counsel for the review petitioner relies upon
the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hitesh Nagjibhai
2
Patel Vs. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari and Another
case and National Insurance Company Limited v.
3
Pranay Sethi , to contend that 40% of the income ought
to have been added towards future prospects.
7. The Supreme Court in the Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel
case has while awarding enhanced compensation in the
1
2025 INSC 1070
2
2025 SCC OnLine SC 3446
3
(2017) 16 SCC 680
3
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60108-DB
RP No. 416 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010513102026
case of an injured minor, has also added future prospects.
The relevant extract is below:
“12. Lastly, with a view of awarding just and fair
compensation, in the attending facts and
circumstances of the case, we are also inclined to
enhance the compensation towards other
pecuniary heads in accordance with the settled
principle of law .
13. In view of the aforesaid, the compensation now
payable to the claimant-appellant would be recalculated
as under:
Compensation
Amount
Awarded
In Accordance
Heads
with:
Monthly Income Rs.6,836/- Baby Sakshi
Greola v. Manzoor
Ahmad Simon
and Another,
(2022) 7 SCC 738
Para 10
Rs.82,032/-
Yearly Income
82,032+32,813
Future
Prospects
(40%)
=Rs.1,14,845/-
National Insurance
Co. Ltd. v. Pranay
Sethi (2017) 16
SCC 680 Para 42
Multiplier (18)
and 59
Rs.1,14,845/-
X 18
=
Rs.20,67,210/-
Permanent
Disability (90%)
90% of
Rs.20,67,210/-
Mohd. Sabeer v.
U.P. SRTC, (2023)
20 SCC 774 Para
12-15
=
Rs.18,60,489/-
Loss of
Income/Future
Earnings due to
Disability
Rs.18,60,489/-
Medical Rs.30,000/- Sidram v.
4
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60108-DB
RP No. 416 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010513102026
Expenses Divisional
Manager, United
India Insurance
Ltd. (2023) 3 SCC
439 Para 63-66, 89
Future Medical Rs.50,000/-
Expenses
Special diet and Rs.1,00,000/-
Transportation
Kajal v. Jagdish
Chand, (2020) 4
SCC 413 Para 19,
26, 28, 29
Loss of Marriage Rs.3,00,000/-
Prospects
Loss of Income
during treatment
Rs.50,000/-
Sanjay Rajpoot v.
Ram Singh, 2025
SCC OnLine SC
285, Para 12
Pain and
Suffering
Rs.5,00,000/-
Loss of
Amenities
Rs.2,00,000/-
Mallikarjun v.
National
Insurance Co.
Ltd., (2014) 14
SCC 396 Para 13,
Para 12-15
Cost of Artificial Rs.5,00,000/- Ayush v. Reliance
Limb General
Insurance Co.
Ltd., (2022) 7 SCC
738 Para 14-15
TOTAL Rs.35,90,489/-
Thus, the difference in compensation is as under :
C
MA T High Court This Court
Rs.3,90,000/- Rs.8,65,000/- Rs.35,90,489/-
[Emphasis Supplied]
7.1 The Supreme Court in the case of Gayatree
Pattnaik for Shreejita Pattnaik Vs. Arundhati Sahoo
5
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60108-DB
RP No. 416 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010513102026
4
and Another , has, while referring to the judgment in
Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel case, also awarded future
prospects in a case where the injured suffered from a
permanent physical disability, based on the table as set
out in the judgment in Pranay Sethi case. The relevant
extract is set out below:
“56. This Court in Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel, observed 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 minimum wages payable to a skilled
workman as notified for the relevant period in the
respective State where the cause of action arose
should be adopted. This Court clarified thus:
“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.”
57. The accident in question took place on 16.06.2015.
Though the MACT applied the State Government
Notification bearing No. 323 of 2015 and took the income
of the injured child as an unskilled labourer, we find
4
2026 SCC OnLine SC 1469
6
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60108-DB
RP No. 416 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010513102026
that the said notification had come into effect after
the date of the accident . On the date of the accident,
the Notification dated 06.10.2012 issued by the
Government of Orissa, as revised by the Notification dated
16.10.2014, would be applicable. The MACT had fallen in
error in taking the income of the injured child as an
unskilled labourer. Interestingly, the High Court also
found the approach of the MACT to be just and
appropriate. Be that as it may, as per the Notification
dated 06.10.2012, the wages payable to a skilled worker
was fixed at Rs. 190.00 per day. By the Notification dated
16.10.2014, the variable dearness allowance was made
payable at the rate of Rs. 2.50 per day w.e.f. 09.10.2014.
Therefore, on the date of the accident, the wages payable
to a skilled worker in the State of Orissa works out to Rs.
192.50 per day. The monthly income would thus be
Rs. 5,775.00. On this basis, the annual income
would be Rs. 69,300.00. Adding 40% towards future
prospects, the annual income becomes Rs.
69,300.00 plus 40% of Rs. 69,300.00, which is Rs.
97,020.00. Applying the multiplier of 18, the total future
income works out to Rs. 17,46,360.00. Taking the
permanent functional disability at 100%, the loss of future
earning capacity would be Rs. 17,46,360.00. Accordingly,
we determine the compensation payable to the appellant
under the head ‘loss of future earnings’ at Rs.
17,46,360.00.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
8. In the present case, the injured was 17 years old and
suffering from a permanent physical disability. Given the
settled legal position in this behalf, this Court deems it
apposite to enhance the compensation on 'loss of future
earnings due to disability' in the following manner:
Rs.9,500/- + 40% x 12 x 18 x 80% = Rs.22,98,240/-
7
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60108-DB
RP No. 416 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010513102026
9. The compensation to be awarded is recalculated as
follows:
Sl.No. Particulars Amount (Rs.)
1 Loss of future earnings due to
disability (Rs.9500 + 40% x 12 x
80% x 18)
22,98,240/-
2 Pain and suffering 45,000/-
3 Medical Expenses 2,16,990/-
4 Loss of earnings during laid up 28,500/-
period (Rs.9,500 x 3)
5 Loss of Marriage Prospects 1,00,000/-
6 Loss of Amenities 50,000/-
7 Future Medical Expenses 50,000/-
8 Attendant, Nourishment, Diet and 15,000/-
Conveyance Charges
TOTAL 28,03,730/-
Less: Awarded by the Tribunal 4,07,390/-
Enhanced compensation 23,96,340/-
10. Hence, the review petitioner is entitled to an
enhancement of compensation in a sum of Rs.23,96,340/-
along with interest at 6% per annum as awarded by the
learned Tribunal, from the date of petition till its
realization.
11. Accordingly, the Court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The review petition is allowed;
8
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60108-DB
RP No. 416 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010513102026
(ii) The Judgment passed by this Court dated
22.06.2026 in MFA No.6211/2018 is modified by
enhancing the compensation to a sum of
Rs.23,96,340/- along with interest at the rate of
6% per annum as awarded by the learned Tribunal
from the date of petition till realization;
(iii) Paragraph 25 of the Impugned Judgment is
modified to read as follows:
“25. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is partly allowed;
(ii) The Judgment and Award dated
31.01.2018, in MVC No.836/2016, passed by
the learned Senior Civil Judge and MACT at
Holalkere, is modified enhancing the
compensation by Rs.23,96,340/- along with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum as
9
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60108-DB
RP No. 416 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010513102026
awarded by the learned Tribunal from the
date of petition till realization;
(iii) The respondent No.2/Insurance company
is directed to pay the enhanced compensation
with interest as awarded by the Tribunal
within eight weeks from today;
(iv) On such deposit of compensation, the
same shall be released in favour of the
appellant/claimant, on filing of an appropriate
application for withdrawal of the enhanced
amount;
(v) The Registry is directed to draw the
modified Award accordingly;
(vi) The Registry is directed transmit a copy
of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal,
along with its records;
10
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60108-DB
RP No. 416 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010513102026
(vii) Pending applications, if any, stand
closed.
(viii) No order as to costs.”
Sd/-
(JAYANT BANERJI)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(TARA VITASTA GANJU)
JUDGE
KSR/BMV*
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1
11