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. 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: 1 Pain suffering already and to be suffered in future, mental and physical shock, Hardship in convenience and discomfort Rs. 4,00,000/- 2 Medical Expenses Rs. 7,00,000/- 3 Towards Future Medical Expenses Rs. 30,000/- 4 Towards Marriage Prospectus Rs. 3,00,000/- 5 Loss of Amenities Attendant Charges, Transportation and Nutrition Food Rs. 50,000/- Total Compensation Rs.14,80,000/- 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 at 35%. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court in appeal. 9. It must be observed that the Insurance Company has not filed any appeal in respect of the liability fastened upon it. 10. On appeal being admitted, the Tribunal records have been secured and the arguments by learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent No.2, Insurance Company are heard. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner submits that the testimony of PW4 and the Disability Certificate issued by him at Ex.P12 show that the whole body disability of the petitioner is 70%. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner submits that the testimony of PW4 and the Disability Certificate issued by him at Ex.P12 show that the whole body disability of the petitioner is 70%. He submits that the injuries suffered by a minor girl aged about 11 years was not properly considered by the Tribunal and it mechanically reduced the disability spoken by PW4 to 50% without applying its mind. He submits that the petitioner had suffered amputation of her right upper limb and fractures to her right lower limb which has severe repercussions on her future. He submits that the Tribunal erred in applying the method adopted by the Apex Court in the case of Master Mallikarjun (supra), even though there are catena of decisions which hold that structured formula has to be adopted for the injuries suffered by the minors also. He further submits that since the petitioner is aged 11 years, the multiplier had to be considered at 18' and notional income as applicable to any other person along with future prospects should have been adopted by the Tribunal. In this regard, he relies upon a judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Master Karthik R. Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and another , [MFA No.426/2020 & Conn.Matters DD 27.09.2024] and connected matters. 12. He also places reliance on the following decisions to buttress his arguments: 1. Kishan Gopal Vs. Lala and others , 2013 SCW 5037. 2. Kumari Kiran through her father Vs. Sajjan Singh and others , (2015) 1 SCC 539 . 3. Sapna vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and another , [ (2008) 7 SCC 613 ] 4. Priya Vasant Kalgutkar vs. Murad Shaikh and another , (2009) 15 SCC 54 . 5. Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand and others , (2020) 4 SCC 413 . 6. Divya vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another , 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1488. 7. Baby Sakshi Greola vs. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Another , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3692. 8. Rushi vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd , [ (2025) 1 SCC 635 ] 13. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2,Insurance Company submit that the Tribunal after careful perusal of the medical records and evidence on record has come to the conclusion that there is functional disability of 35% as against the physical disability of 70% stated by PW4. Ltd , [ (2025) 1 SCC 635 ] 13. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2,Insurance Company submit that the Tribunal after careful perusal of the medical records and evidence on record has come to the conclusion that there is functional disability of 35% as against the physical disability of 70% stated by PW4. He submits that the assessment of the functional disability by the Tribunal is proper and the physical disability cannot be yardstick to assess the compensation. He submit that there is no evidence to show the academic performance of the petitioner in her School and therefore, no case was made out by the petitioner to deviate from the formula adopted by the Apex Court in the case of Master Mallikarjun (supra). It is submitted that the Tribunal has adequately compensated the petitioner for loss of marriage prospects and there is no need for enhancement of the compensation in any manner. So far as the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Master Karthik's case (supra) is concerned, he submit that there is no pleading in this regard, and therefore, it cannot be applied. It is submitted that the said judgment is not based on any scientific or tested methodology and do not have support of any judicial pronouncements. Moreover, against the judgment in the case of Master Karthik (supra), an appeal filed by the Insurance Company is pending before the Apex Court. 14. The method of calculation of the compensation in cases of injuries to the minors is subject matter of a catena of judicial pronouncements since there is no such time tested scientific methodology which would predict the future of the minor. The vagaries of the life, unpredictability of the future and indefiniteness of a probable income of the minor on his attaining majority complicate the determination of the compensation entitled by a minor. However, the Courts are trying to find out and lay down the principles governing the assessment of the compensation in such cases. 15. In a recent judgment, this Court has dealt with the method of calculation of the compensation entitled by a minor for the injuries suffered in the accident in the case of Sagar Vs. However, the Courts are trying to find out and lay down the principles governing the assessment of the compensation in such cases. 15. In a recent judgment, this Court has dealt with the method of calculation of the compensation entitled by a minor for the injuries suffered in the accident in the case of Sagar Vs. Umesh and another , [MFA No.201340/2024 - DD 19.06.2025] , wherein, the judgments cited by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner and also the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, Insurance Company were considered by this Court in detail. After considering all these judgments, this Court has held that (a) the income of the minor has to be the notional income, which is relatable to the wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act, (b) the Multiplier to be applied is 18' irrespective of the age of the minor, and (c) the future prospects have to be added if the functional disability is above 50%. However, if the evidence shows that the child was having excellent academic or other prowess, the above rule may be deviated to compensate the child adequately. It is in this background, the compensation to be awarded to the appellant needs to be assessed by this Court. 16. The petitioner is aged about 11 years and had suffered the injuries in the accident. This aspect is not in dispute. The involvement of the car owned by respondent No.1, insured by respondent No.2 is also not disputed. Obviously, the petitioner was a pillion rider and therefore, for her, it is a case of composite negligence. She can maintain the petition as against any one of the tortfeaser. As such, respondent No.2 Insurance company having not impleaded the owner and insurer of the TVS XL Two wheeler, is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner (as held in Khenyei Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and others , [ (2015)9 SCC 273 ] ). 17. The perusal of the Wound Certificate at Ex.P6, Discharge Summaries produced at Exs.P7 to P11 show the nature of the injuries suffered by the petitioner. Coupled with these documents, the photographs of the petitioner at Exs.P23 and P24 also show the injuries suffered by her. The Discharge Summary issued by Dhanwantari Hospital, Kalaburagi at Ex.P7 shows the nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner and the treatment provided to her. Coupled with these documents, the photographs of the petitioner at Exs.P23 and P24 also show the injuries suffered by her. The Discharge Summary issued by Dhanwantari Hospital, Kalaburagi at Ex.P7 shows the nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner and the treatment provided to her. It reads as below: "Diagnosis: Polytrauma c hypovolemic shock c ¯ ¯ Hypotension c # Rt femur, tibia c Rt ankle EHL tendon ¯ ¯ repair c near total amputation of Rt forearm c skin ¯ ¯ grafting & revascularization. Presenting Complaints & Clinical History: A/H/O RTA at @ 5:30 pm near laladhari TQ: Humnabad. H/o injury to Rt forearm, Rt thigh, Rt leg & left leg.No H/o known co-morbidity. Clinical Findings: Pt injury supine t Rt arm by side of trunk, external rotation of Rt lower limib. Distal forearm & hand on Rt side lying loosely attached to proximal part medially c minimal soft tissue. Sharp ¯ bony ledges visible on both side. gross swelling noted in Rt thigh & Rt leg. Investigation: CLW 5 cm over posterior aspect of Rt knee. CLW 3 cm over Anterior aspect of Rt leg. CLW 6 cm over porsum of Rt foot. Avulsed Rt tibia anterior muscle visualized. 3*4 cm wound on Lt Dorsum of foot. Burns mark 6*3cm presentation Anterior aspect of Rt thigh. Course in the Hospital: (Medical/Surgical Management) 16/12/2020 - Debridement + revascularization. 16/12/2020 - Near total amputation of RT forearm Distal. 19/12/2020- 1) Rt femur # c TENS nail. 2) Rt tibia # c TENS nail. 3) Comminited type 3 Aoklh tibia # c ¯ extussion tenden injury. Condition on Discharge: 19/12/2020 - Debridement + EHL tendon repair. 2/1/2021- Ex.fix removal & TENS nail t K-wire to Rt radius. - Ex.fix readjustment of Rt ulna. - Ex.fix - Ankle spaning to Rt tibia. Advice on Discharge: 2/1/2021 - Near total amputation of Rt forearm. Debridement + abdomen flop + SSG for Rt forearm + SSG for Lt foot + secondary suturing of Rt thigh wound. When to obtain Emergency care: (Symptoms for Emergency Care) D/A - Inj. Meropenam 500mg IV 1-0-1* 4d. T. Taxim - O 200mg 1-0-1 * 5d T.Pan 40mg 1-0-0 * 5d. T. Ultacet 1-0-1 * 5d. T. Calcimax 1-0-0 * 30 Syp. Mecalvit 5ml OD. Syp. Bevon 5ml OD. How to obtain Emergency Care: 9606888234 Follow up: After 5 days." 18. Petitioner was inpatient from 15.12.2020 to 06.01.2021. Meropenam 500mg IV 1-0-1* 4d. T. Taxim - O 200mg 1-0-1 * 5d T.Pan 40mg 1-0-0 * 5d. T. Ultacet 1-0-1 * 5d. T. Calcimax 1-0-0 * 30 Syp. Mecalvit 5ml OD. Syp. Bevon 5ml OD. How to obtain Emergency Care: 9606888234 Follow up: After 5 days." 18. Petitioner was inpatient from 15.12.2020 to 06.01.2021. Thereafter, she was again admitted to the said hospital from 24.01.2021 to 30.01.2021 and 14.03.2021 to 16.03.2021 for complications and removal of the external fixator etc. 19. Thereafter, she again was inpatient from 05.05.2021 to 09.05.2021 at Darsh Hospital, Kalaburagi, since the wound was not heeling. Then, she was taken to Sanjay Gandhi Institute of Trauma and Orthopedics, Bengaluru, where she was in patient from 03.06.2021 to 16.06.2021 since the puss discharge continued from the wounds. These records of the hospitals show the ghastly nature of the injuries suffered by the petitioner. 20. PW4, Dr.Raju Kulkarni, in his testimony as well as the Disability Certificate states that he examined the petitioner for assessment of disability on 05.07.2022 and he noticed the following aspects: "Nikitha had the following complaints at the time of my followup examination: 1. Deformity of right forearm and complete loss of right hand functions. 2. She cannot do any work with her right hand. 3. Doing daily chores and writing is not possible. 4. Pain in right forearm and right leg. 5. Walks with limp due to shortening of right lower limb. She discontinued her studied due to the RTA. Nikita had the following clinical findings: 1. Deformity of multiple scarring of right forearm. 2. Grip and pinch function of right had are completely lost. 3. Right upper limb is flial. No active movements at wrist and elbow. 4. Tenderness over right tibia and right femur. 5. Right knee range of motion is restricted by 30 degrees. 6. Complete squatting and cross leg sitting is difficult. 7. Wears arm pouch to support her right forearm. Muscle power grade is 1/5 in all forearm muscles. Radiological examination revealed: 1. Ununited complete sclerosis of the fracture fragments of distal 3 rd of right radius with malunion of distal 3 rd of ulna with loss of right wrist joint space with arthritis of wrist with servere osteoporosis. 2. Malunited fracture of shaft of right femur with implants in situ. 3. Radiological examination revealed: 1. Ununited complete sclerosis of the fracture fragments of distal 3 rd of right radius with malunion of distal 3 rd of ulna with loss of right wrist joint space with arthritis of wrist with servere osteoporosis. 2. Malunited fracture of shaft of right femur with implants in situ. 3. Gross malunion with procurvatum and varus deformities of proximal 3 rd of shaft of right tibia. 4. Arthritis of right tibio-talar joint with osteroporosis. Above disabilities are due to post trauma effect. She requires implant removal of right femur. Expenses will be Rs.40,000/- at private hospital. Hence, I am of the opinion that Nikita is a case of flial (non-functional) right upper limb with deformity of right forearm with malunion of right femur and right tibia with pain and restriction of right knee range of motion and has permanent physical impairment in relation to: Right Upper Limb = 60% (A) Right lower limib = 30% (B) Total disability to whole body by combining formula is: A+B (90-A) = 60 + 30 (90-60) = 70% 90                             90 Therefore, whole body permanent physical impairment is 70%." 21. The cross-examination of PW4 do not show anything which render his testimony unreliable. A girl aged about 13 years has suffered the above injuries resulting in gross deformity of her right arm, right leg, and abdomen. Obviously, the right arm of the petitioner has lost sensation and it has to be in a pouch as stated by PW4. This would only indicate that the right arm is totally dysfunctional. Coupled with this, the right leg also has the deformity and has resulted in gait. If we examine the above condition of the petitioner, it cannot be disputed that the functional disability of the petitioner could not have been reduced to 35% as is done by the Tribunal. It is settled principle of law (see Rajkumar vs. Ajay Kumar , [ (2011) 1 SCC 343 ] that the functional disability has to be considered with reference to the impairment in carrying on the day-today functions of a human being. Of course, it also depends upon the avocation of a person. The petitioner being a girl aged 13 years, her avocation cannot be predicted. There is no evidence to show her academic performance which would make her entitled for additional compensation. Of course, it also depends upon the avocation of a person. The petitioner being a girl aged 13 years, her avocation cannot be predicted. There is no evidence to show her academic performance which would make her entitled for additional compensation. In that view of the matter, the functional disability of the petitioner is held to be 70% as spoken by PW4. 22. It is worth to note that the petitioner was aged 13 years at the time of the accident as may be found from the medical records. PW1 states that she was studying in 7 th Standard. Therefore, the age of the petitioner has to be held to be 13 years as on the date of the accident. In view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Sagar Vs. Umesh and another , [MFA No.201340/2024] referred supra, the applicable Multiplier would be 18'. 23. The notional income of a minor has to be considered with reference to the minimum wages notified under the Minimum Wages Act. In the case of Smt.Mariyamma and others Vs. Sri Suyambulingam and another , [MFA No.7404/2014 DD 06-12-2022] and several other cases, it was held that the guidelines issued by the KSLSA for the purpose of settlement of disputes before the Lok Adalat are in general conformity with the minimum wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act. Therefore, as per the Guidelines, notional income is considered at Rs.13,750/- per month. Since the disability is held to be 70%, future prospects need to be considered. Therefore, the loss of future income is calculated as: Rs.19,250/- [Rs.13,750/- + Rs.5,500/- (40%)] x 12 x 18 (multiplier) x 70% (disability) = 29,10,600/- 24. In addition to the above compensation, having regard to the nature of the injuries suffered, period of inpatient treatment at various hospitals, and the testimony of PW4, it would be just and proper to award a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of 'pain and suffering', a sum of Rs.75,000/- under the head of 'loss of amenities in life', and Rs.75,000/- under the head of 'attendant charges, transportation, nutritious food etc.' Further, the parents of the petitioner had to accompany her for the treatment and as such, 'loss of income of the parents during the laid up period' of the petitioner is calculated for 08 months at Rs.13,750/- x 8 =1,10,000/-. 25. 25. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of medical expenses, future medical expenses and loss of marriage prospects do not require any enhancement. 26. Hence, the petitioner/appellant herein is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.43,00,600/- instead Rs.14,80,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the following heads: Loss of future earnings due to disability Rs.29,10,600/- Pain and sufferings Rs. 1,00,000/- Loss of amenities Rs. 75,000/- Loss of marriage prospects Rs. 3,00,000/- Loss of income of parents during the laid up period Rs. 1,10,000/- Medical expenses Rs. 7,00,000/- Future medical expenses. Rs. 30,000/- Attendant charges, conveyance and nourishing food Rs. 75,000/- Total Less: awarded by the tribunal Rs.43,00,600/- Rs.14,80,000/- Enhancement Rs.28,20,600/- 27. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal deserves to be allowed in part. Hence the following: ORDER (1) The appeal is allowed in part. (2) The petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.28,20,600/- in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal along with interest at 6% p.a. (excluding interest for the delayed period of 206 days in filing the appeal as per order dated 05.09.2023) from the date of the petition till its deposit by the Insurer. (3) Rest of the order by the Tribunal regarding fixed deposit and release remain unaltered.