The court established that for minors, compensation for injuries must follow established judicial precedents for assessing disability and notional income based on minimum wage guidelines.

JUDGMENT :

C M JOSHI, J.

This appeal is filed by the petitioner-Neekita, challenging the quantum of the compensation awarded by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kalaburagi in MVC No.595/2021 dated 14.09.2022.

2. Little was known to the petitioner when she was traveling on the TVS XL two wheeler bearing No.KA.56.E.8031 along with her mother as a pillion rider that she would suffer an accident resulting in her almost amputation of her right hand. She was traveling on the aforesaid two wheeler driven by one Mallikarjun along with her mother as a pillion rider on 15.12.2020. The car bearing No.KA.28.P.7460 came from opposite side in rash and negligent manner and collided with the two wheeler resulting in the rider and the two pillion riders falling down and sustaining injuries. All of them were shifted to Dhanwantari Hospital, Kalaburagi.

3. A complaint was filed by one Jagannath, an eye witness to the accident before the jurisdictional police which resulted in FIR in Crime No. 102/2020 setting the criminal law in motion against the driver of the car. After investigation, the Investigating Officer filed chargesheet against the car driver alleging rash and negligent driving and also against the rider Mallikarjun alleging he was riding the two wheeler without licence and owner of the TVS XL two wheeler for allowing the two wheeler to be driven without a valid insurance.

4. The petitioner- Neekita, filed the petition through her father-Shivakumar Swami and contended that she was aged 11 years at the time of the accident, alleging that the accident was due to the actionable negligence on the part of the car driver and as such, she is entitled for just and reasonable compensation of Rs.61,72,000/- from the owner and the Insurer of the car.

5. On service of notice, respondent No.1, did not appear and as such was placed exparte. Respondent No.2, Insurance Company, appeared and contested the matter by filing written statement. Respondent No.2 denied the contentions of the petitioner and alleged that the accident was due to the negligence on the part of the rider Mallikarjun and that the owner and insurer of the two wheeler are also necessary parties. It was contended that the compensation claimed is highly exorbitant, imaginary and untenable. Inter alia, the age, avocation and income were also denied by it. Respondent No.2, alleging that the driver of the car was not holding valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident, there were violations of the terms and conditions of the policy and as such, sought to dismiss the petition as against it.

6. The Tribunal, framed appropriate issues and clubbed the matter with two other claim petitions filed by the said Mallikarjun and Kalpana- the mother of the petitioner, and held a common enquiry. The father of the petitioner-Neekita, was examined as PW1, her mother Kalpana was examined as PW2, Mallikarjun, was examined as PW3 and the Doctor, who assessed the disability of the petitioner was examined as PW4. Exhibits P1 to P54 were marked in evidence. No evidence was led or documents were produced on behalf of respondent No.2, Insurance Company.

7. After hearing the arguments by both the sides, the Tribunal held that the accident was due to the negligence on the part of the car driver and awarded a compensation of Rs.14,80,000/- to the petitioner under the following heads:

8. While coming to such conclusion, it followed the ratio and the methodology laid down in a case of Master Mallikarjun Vs. The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and another , [(2014) 14 SCC 396] by assessing disability