Karnataka High CourtTransport, Maritime, and Aviation LawCivil Law

Karnataka HC Raises Injured 13-Year-Old’s Compensation To Rs 3.49 Lakh, Using Rs 14,000 Skilled-Wage Benchmark To Calculate Future Disability Loss

B B FATHIMAv.M SUJATHA

Karnataka HC Raises Injured 13-Year-Old’s Compensation To Rs 3.49 Lakh, Using Rs 14,000 Skilled-Wage Benchmark To Calculate Future Disability Loss. B B FATHIMA vs M SUJATHA. Karnataka High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal required enhancement, including compensation for future loss of income arising from the claimant’s disability.

The court held

The Court partly allowed the appeal and enhanced the total compensation to ₹3,49,208, an increase of ₹1,92,400 over the Tribunal’s award.

It also directed

The enhanced amount carries interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition until realisation; the insurer was directed to deposit it within six weeks.

The amount deposited is to be kept in fixed deposit in the minor appellant’s name until she attains majority.

01Facts

The appellant, aged 13 at the time, sustained injuries in a road traffic accident on 5 April 2023 involving a Mahindra Bolero Pickup.

pp. 2–4

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal partly allowed her claim and awarded ₹1,56,808 with interest at 6% per annum.

pp. 2–4

She appealed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement.

pp. 2–4

The High Court considered her injuries, the doctor’s assessment of 22.3% disability to the right lower limb, and the resulting whole-body disability.

pp. 5–6

02Issues

i.1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal required enhancement, including compensation for future loss of income arising from the claimant’s disability.

pp. 3, 5–8

ii.2. Whether the claimant was entitled to additional compensation under the other heads arising from her injuries and period of recovery.

pp. 6–8

03Law Applied

The appeal was brought under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which provides for an appeal from an award of a Claims Tribunal.

p. 2

The Court referred to Master Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co., (2014) 14 SCC 396, on compensation for injury to a child, and to Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari, 2025 INSC 1070, for assessing a child’s income by reference to minimum wages and calculating future income loss using the applicable multiplier and disability.

p. 5

For disability to a lower limb, the Court treated one-third of the assessed limb disability as whole-body disability.

p. 5

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173

04Reasoning

Applying Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel, the Court assessed the claimant’s monthly income at ₹14,000, corresponding to the stated minimum wage for a skilled worker in Zone 3, and applied a multiplier of 15 for her age.

pp. 5–6

It treated one-third of the doctor’s 22.3% right-lower-limb disability as 7% whole-body disability, resulting in future loss of income of ₹1,76,400 (₹14,000 × 12 × 15 × 7%).

pp. 5–6

In light of the injuries, hospitalisation and anticipated two-month recovery, it awarded amounts for pain and suffering, loss of amenities, a parent’s loss of income during the laid-up period, medical expenses, and attendant, conveyance, food and nourishment expenses.

pp. 6–8

05Holding

The Court partly allowed the appeal and enhanced the total compensation to ₹3,49,208, an increase of ₹1,92,400 over the Tribunal’s award.

pp. 8–9

The enhanced amount carries interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition until realisation; the insurer was directed to deposit it within six weeks.

pp. 8–9

The amount deposited is to be kept in fixed deposit in the minor appellant’s name until she attains majority.

pp. 8–9
Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF

B B FATHIMAvsM SUJATHA

Karnataka High Court · October 16, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment