BABY FATHIMA SHIFA vs ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INS CO LTD

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59020
MFA No. 6265 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010523882017



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


TH
DATED THIS THE 17 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE


THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6265 OF 2017(MV-I)

BETWEEN:

BABY FATHIMA SHIFA
AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS
REP. BY HER MOTHER
NASEEMA W/O HAKEEN
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/O PICHLAR HOUSE, INDABETTU,
BELTHANGADY TALUK,
PRESENTLY R/O
ZULAIKA MANZIL
KADRI ROAD, KADRI, MANGALURU.

…APPELLANT








[BY SRI GURUPRASAD B R., ADVOCATE (PH)]

AND:

1. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INS. CO. LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE, III FLOOR,
EMKAY'S SHALIMAR COMPELX,
KANKANADY, MANGALURU
REP. BY ITS MANAGER.

2. ABDUL JABBAR
S/O ABDUL KHADER
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/O MARIPALLA HOUSE
SUJIRA PUDU VILLAGE
BANTWAL TALUK.

…RESPONDENTS
Digitally signed
by ANUSHA V
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka

[BY SRI RAVI S SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 (PH);
V/C/O DATED 12.3.2018 NOTICE TO R2 TO R4 IS D/W]

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59020
MFA No. 6265 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010523882017


THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.10.2016 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1094/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, & JMFC, MANGALURU, D.K., PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

ORAL JUDGMENT

Challenging judgment and award dated 20.10.2016
passed by III Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,
Mangaluru, D.K., in MVC no.1094/2013, this appeal is filed.


2. Sri Guruprasad B.R., learned counsel for
appellant submitted that appeal was by claimant for
enhancement of compensation. And brief facts leading to this
appeal were that at 9:00 a.m. on 21.03.2013 when claimant
was going to School in Auto no.KA-21/A-115, a Lorry no.KA-
51/TR-6526 was driven by its driver in rash and negligent
manner and dashed against Auto near Hirebandai Cross. In
accident, claimant sustained grievous injuries and despite
treatment at A.J. Hospital, Mangalore, she did not recover fully

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59020
MFA No. 6265 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010523882017


and sustained physical disability. Therefore, she filed claim
petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (' MV
Act ') against owners/insurers of Auto and Lorry.


3. Despite service of summons, owners did not
appear. They were placed ex-parte . Respondents no.2 and 4
opposed claim petition on all grounds including alleging
negligence of claimant and violation of policy conditions by
insured. Based on pleadings, Tribunal framed following:
ISSUES:
1. Whether the petitioner proves that on
21.03.2013 at about 9.a.m. when she was
going towards Indraprashta English
medium school at Uppinangadu in an auto
rickshaw bearing no.KA-21-A-115 near
Hirebandai cross, Uppinangady kasba
village of Puttur taluk on NH-75 the driver
of the goods lorry bearing no.KA-51-TR-
6526 came from Bangalore side by driving
the same in a rash and negligent manner
and dashed to the auto rickshaw and due to
the said accident she has sustained
injuries?

2. Whether the respondent no.2 proves that
the accident was caused due to rash and
negligent driving of auto rickshaw bearing
no.KA-21-A-115?

3. Whether the respondent no.2 proves that
the driver of goods lorry bearing no.KA-51-
TR-6526 has no valid licence at the time of
accident?

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59020
MFA No. 6265 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010523882017


4. Whether the respondent no.4 proves that
the driver of auto rickshaw bearing no.KA-
21-A115 has no valid licence at the time of
accident?

5. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the
compensation? If so at what rate and from
whom?

6. What order?


4. To prove her case, claimant examined 3 witnesses
including Dr.Sudhakar T as PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1
to P19. Respondent got marked Ex.R1 with consent.


5. On consideration, Tribunal answered issue no.1 in
affirmative, issues no.2 to 4 in negative, issue no.5 partly in
affirmative and issue no.6 by assessing compensation of
Rs.2,71,884/- with interest at 6% per annum against insurer.
Dissatisfied with quantum, this appeal was filed.


6. It was submitted claimant was minor aged 10 years
who sustained fracture of Right femur, Right tibia and meta
tarsal of right foot etc., assessed by PW-2 to have caused 25%
permanent physical disability to her right lower limb. Refusal to
award compensation towards future loss of income would not
be justified. It was submitted, Tribunal erred granting only

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59020
MFA No. 6265 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010523882017


Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.9,900/- towards
food, attendance and other incidental charges, Rs.50,000/-
towards loss of amenities and Rs.1,61,984/- towards medical
expenses which were inadequate and sought enhancement.


7. It was submitted Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hitesh
Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari reported in
2025 SCC OnLine SC 3446 , held assessment of income of
non-earning minor victim of motor accidents, minimum wages
notified for skilled worker at relevant point of time had to be
considered and multiplier applicable would be '18'. It was
submitted, Tribunal erred in not awarding compensation
towards loss of income during period of treatment. On said
grounds sought for allowing petition.


8. On other hand, Sri Ravi S. Samprathi, learned
counsel for insurer opposing appeal submitted that normally
rd
1/3 limb disability had to be treated as whole body disability,
award of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities was excessive
and rate of interest was excessive and off-set scope for
enhancement. On said ground sought for dismissal of appeal.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59020
MFA No. 6265 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010523882017



9. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned
judgment, award and record.


10. From above and since claimant is in appeal for
enhancement of compensation, sole point arising is:
"Whether claimant is entitled for enhancement of
compensation as prayed for?"


11. Occurrence of accident due to negligent riding of
insured vehicle claimant sustaining injuries and being entitled
for compensation are not in dispute.


12. Appeal is for enhancement of compensation. Insofar
as assessment of disability, Ex.P.14 - wound certificate
mentions fractural injuries sustained . PW.2 doctor who issued
Ex.P9 - disability certificate about claimant suffering from non-
progressive permanent physical disability of 25% to right lower
limb. Merely on ground that claimant was minor and student
would not justify denial of compensation towards future loss of
income. Considering fact that multiple fractures were sustained
to same limb and young age of claimant, it is found appropriate
to consider loss of earning capacity at 9%. But, as held in
Hitesh 's case (supra), in absence of material to establish

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59020
MFA No. 6265 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010523882017


minimum wages notified for skilled worker during relevant
period, it is found appropriate to consider notional income at
Rs.8,000/- for year 2013 as income of victim and adding 40%
towards future prospects, compensation towards future loss of
income would be:
(Rs.8,000/- + 40%) x 9% x 12 x 18 = Rs.2,17,728/-


13. Considering fact that claimant sustained Fracture of
femur as well as fracture of tibia and metatarsal, award of
Rs.50,000/- only towards pain and suffering, would be
inadequate and is enhanced to Rs.75,000/- . Considering in-
patient treatment period of 15 days, amount of Rs.9,900/-
towards food, attendance and other incidental charges is found
inadequate and enhanced to Rs.20,000/- . Considering age,
nature and extent of disability, award of Rs.50,000/- towards
loss of amenities would be excessive and reduced to
Rs.35,000/- . Award of Rs.1,61,984/- towards medical
expenses being in complete reimbursement of bills produced,
would leave no scope for enhancement. Considering young age
and need for future treatment, it is found appropriate to award
Rs.20,000/- towards future medical expenses. Tribunal has

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59020
MFA No. 6265 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010523882017


not awarded any compensation towards loss of income during
period of treatment and recuperation. Considering same to be
three months and notional monthly income at Rs.8,000/-,
claimant would be entitled to Rs.24,000/- . Thus, total
compensation would be Rs.5,53,712/-. As against award of
Rs.2,71,884/- by Tribunal, there would be enhancement by
Rs.2,81,828/- . Point for consideration is answered partly in
affirmative.


14. Consequently, following:
ORDER

i) Appeal is allowed in part ; judgment
and award dated 20.10.2016 passed
by III Additional Senior Civil Judge and
JMFC, Mangaluru, D.K., in MVC
no.1094/2013 is modified ; claimant is
held entitled for additional
compensation of Rs.2,81,882/- , with
interest at 6% per annum from date of
claim petition till deposit.


ii) Insurer is directed to deposit enhanced
compensation before Tribunal within
six weeks.

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59020
MFA No. 6265 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010523882017



iii) On deposit, entire enhanced
compensation with interest is ordered
to be released in favour of claimant
through electronic means.


Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE



GRD, AV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21