THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:01.09.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.6838/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-14), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the minor injured appellant challenging the judgment and award dated 01.09.2018 passed in MVC.No.6838/2017 by the MACT, Bengaluru, (SCCH-14), (for short 'Tribunal').

Though this appeal is listed for orders, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.

Sri.Suresh M. Latur, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant was a minor, aged about 8 years, and sustained a right femur mid shaft fracture and injury to right thigh. He was provided treatment at Hosmat Hospital, Bengaluru as an inpatient and underwent surgery. To substantiate the loss of income, injuries suffered and disability, the father of the appellant was examined and the treating doctor deposed that the appellant has suffered 10% disability to the whole body and 30% disability to a particular limb. However, the Tribunal has awarded meager compensation on all heads. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions, has held that in the case of a minor suffering injuries in a road accident, the compensation is required to be assessed under the head of loss of future income due to disability by assessing minimum wages to skilled labour and applying the appropriate multiplier as per the second schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'). In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari and Another , 2 and in the case of V. Mekala v. M. Malathi and Another 2. It is further submitted that the appellant is also entitled to the costs of litigation. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal.

Per contra, Sri.B.C.Shivanne Gowda, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 supports the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that the appellant is a minor. It is submitted that the injuries suffered by the appellant have completely healed, and therefore, the question of assessing the disability and awarding compensation under the head of loss of future income due to disability does not arise. It is further submitted that the Tribunal taking note of the fact that the injured was an inpatient for 2 days at Hosmat Hospital, Bengaluru, has awarded just compensation on all heads, which does not call for any enhancement. It is also 2 ( 0 2 2 0 51 4 I ) N 1 S 1 C S C 0 C1 78 submitted that the judgments relied by the appellant's counsel have no application to the facts of the case. In the case of Hitesh referred supra, the injuries and disability were more severe. Considering the said aspect, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed to assess the income of the minor and awarded compensation and the said case cannot be made applicable to the case on hand. It is contended that compensation is required to be reassessed on a case to case basis, by considering the evidence before the Tribunal. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.

I have heard the arguments on both the sides and meticulously perused the material available on record.

The records indicate that the appellant was a minor aged about 8 years, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. The material on record also indicates that the minor appellant was walking on the extreme left side of the road along with his father on 27.08.2017 at Avalahalli, Bengaluru. At that time, the rider of the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-05-JM-2980 drove the said motorcycle in a rash and negligent mann