Karnataka High Court
Master Nikhil vs S T Swamygowda on 15 April, 2026
NC: 2026:KHC:20458
MFA No. 2703 of 2017
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2703 OF 2017 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
1. MASTER. NIKHIL,
S/O MANJEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF
SAVANTHANAHALLI VILLAGE,
SHANTHIGRAMA HOBLI,
HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN-573220.
PETITIONER BEING MINOR
REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER
NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT.KAMAKSHI,
W/O MANJEGOWDA.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. CHETHAN B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. S.T. SWAMYGOWDA,
S/O THOPEGOWDA,
MAJOR,
RESIDING AT SAVANTHAHALLI VILLAGE,
SHANTHIGRAMA HOBLI,
HASSAN TALUK,
HASSAN-573220.
2. THE MANAGER,
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
1
NC: 2026:KHC:20458
MFA No. 2703 of 2017
HC-KAR
KRITHIKA ARCADE,
H.N. PURA ROAD,
HASSAN-560002.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
VIDE ORDER DATED 05.07.2024,
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.09.2016
PASSED IN MVC NO.1328/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT, HASSAN,
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 MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal seeks to challenge the award dated 08.09.2016 passed in M.V.C.No.1328/2014 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Hassan (hereinafter referred to as the "Impugned Award"]. By the Impugned Award, a sum of Rs.4,44,000/- is granted along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 2
NC: 2026:KHC:20458 MFA No. 2703 of 2017 HC-KAR
2. The brief facts are that, on 13.06.2014 at around 5.00 p.m., the minor appellant was walking on the left side of the road when a driver of a tractor trailer bearing registration No.KA-13-7341-7342 while driving in a rash and negligent manner hit the minor child. As a result of the accident, the minor child sustained grievous injuries to his legs and other parts of the body. The appellant was hospitalized in Hassan Government Hospital and thereafter was shifted to Father Muller Medical College Hospital, Mangalore. The appellant took treatment for a period of 20 days and more than Rs.2,00,000/- was spent towards the treatment.
3. The claim petition was filed before the Tribunal. The claim was contested by respondent No.2/Insurance Company. None appeared for respondent No.1/owner of the tractor trailer despite service and thus, he was proceeded with exparte.
]] 3 NC: 2026:KHC:20458 MFA No. 2703 of 2017 HC-KAR
4. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:
"1. Whether the petitioner proves that he sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 13.06.2014 at about 5.00 p.m., on the left side of the road, Savanthanahalli village, due to rash and negligent driving of Tractor and Trailer bearing registration No.KA-13-7341-7342 being driven by its rider in an actionable negligence?
2. Whether the respondent No.2 proves that the driver of Tractor and Trailer bearing registration No.KA-13-7341-42 was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident?
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, for what amount and from whom?
4. What order or award?"
5. The mother of the minor petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and the doctor who treated the petitioner was examined as C.W.1. The documents were also filed by the petitioner being marked as Exs.P1 to P11 as well as by the Court Commissioner C.W.1 being marked as Exs.C1 to C3. 4
NC: 2026:KHC:20458 MFA No. 2703 of 2017 HC-KAR
6. The Tribunal after examining the evidence produced before it and based on the judgment in the case of Master Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, The National Insurance Company Limited and Another1, held that since the disability of the minor child is between 10% and 30% to the entire body, the petitioner is entitled to compensation in a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- under the head pain and sufferings already undergone and to be suffered in future, mental and physical hardship, inconvenience and discomforts and loss of amenities in life on account of permanent disability. In addition, the following amounts were also awarded:
Sl.No. Particulars Amount (Rs.)
1. Pain and sufferings already 3,00,000/-
undergone and to be suffered in
future, mental and physical
hardship, inconvenience and
discomforts etc. and loss of
amenities in life on account of
permanent disability
2. Medical expenses 1,17,000/-
3. Inconvenience and loss caused to 12,000/-
parent
4. Food and nourishment charges 10,000/-
1
(2014) 14 SCC 396
5
NC: 2026:KHC:20458
MFA No. 2703 of 2017
HC-KAR
5. Transportation and incidental 5,000/-
charges
Total 4,44,000/-
7. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the present appeal has been filed on the ground that the learned Tribunal has not calculated the awarded amount in accordance with the settled law. The learned counsel contends that the learned Tribunal has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of to take a composite amount for pain and sufferings already undergone and to be suffered in future, physical and mental hardship, inconvenience, discomfort and loss of amenities. However, he contends that in terms of the settled law in the cases of Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and Others2 as well as Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Another3 of the Supreme Court and in a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari 2 (2020) 4 SCC 413 3 2024 SCC Online SC 3692 6 NC: 2026:KHC:20458 MFA No. 2703 of 2017 HC-KAR and Another4, the compensation has to be ascertained on the basis of the notional income /minimum wages.
8. In addition, the learned counsel has contended that the loss of dependency should be calculated based on the notional income chart which has been prepared relying on the minimum wages for the State of Karnataka.
9. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 on the other hand submits that since the law as on the date of the Impugned Award was the law in force as per Master Mallikarjun case, the Tribunal is justified in awarding the amounts that are set out in the Impugned Award.
10. As stated above, it is the appellant case that although the Impugned Award was passed prior to the judgment in the Kajal case in view of the fact that the matter has not attained finality, the law as is applicable today should be applied.
4 2025 INSC 1070 7 NC: 2026:KHC:20458 MFA No. 2703 of 2017 HC-KAR
11. On hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the questions that arises for consideration of this Court are:
(i) Whether in an appeal, the Court is required to examine the law as on the date of the judgment or as on the date of the appeal?
(ii) Whether the compensation awarded to the appellant/claimant would require to be enhanced?
12. So far as the first aspect of the matter, the law as settled by the Supreme Court is that in the case of a death or injury of a minor child, the Minimum Wages of the Skilled Worker are to be awarded. The Supreme Court in Master Ayush v. Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. & Another5 while discussing entitlement of the compensation in the case of a minor child held that minimum wages in the State where the accident occurred of a skilled worker as of the date of the accident and that compensation would be assessed thereon on the assumption that the Appellant would have 5 (2022) 7 SCC 738 8 NC: 2026:KHC:20458 MFA No. 2703 of 2017 HC-KAR been able to earn after attaining maturity. The relevant extract is set out below:
"10. Hence, as per the above extract, the minimum wages payable to a skilled workman in 2010-11 is to the tune of Rs 3708.70. In this view, the minimum wages as on the date of accident is rounded off to Rs 3700. The compensation, therefore, is to be assessed on the basis of the said minimum wages on the assumption that the appellant would have been able to earn after attaining majority."
[Emphasis Supplied]
13. A similar view was taken by the Supreme Court in Minor Roopa D/o Basappa v. Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited6 where the injured was a minor girl who suffered permanent physical impairment. The Court while relying on the Master Ayush case determined compensation on the basis of minimum wages of a skilled worker in the following terms:
"4. The learned counsel for the appellant has produced the photographs of the appellant which shows the extent of loss of limb and the consequent psychological, emotional and physical pain which the appellant would suffer for rest of her life. In fact, the other leg may not be able to support the appellant, when she grows. This Court in Ayush [Ayush v. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., (2022) 7 SCC 738 : (2022) 4 SCC (Civ) 175 : (2022) 3 SCC (Cri) 269] was considering a case of an accident of 5-year-old child wherein this 6 (2024) 12 SCC 2019 9 NC: 2026:KHC:20458 MFA No. 2703 of 2017 HC-KAR Court determined compensation on account of loss of future earnings on the basis of minimum wages due to permanent disability for life, loss of future prospects, medical expenses and pain and suffering."
5. The minimum wages in the State of Karnataka on the date of accident were Rs 4320 per month as per Notification No. KAE 79 LMW 2005 dated 17-3-2006, published in the Gazette dated 19-2- 2007. The wages as per the notification are as under:
"Minimum Wages and VDA from 1-4-2012 to 31-3-2013 SCHEDULE Sl.No. Class of Minimum rates of wages Employment payable for different zones Basic VDA Total 1 2 3 4 5
1. Highly skilled 2691.80 1728.90 4420.70
2. Skilled 2591.80 1728.90 4320.70
3. Semi-skilled 2041.80 1728.90 3770.70
4. Unskilled 1891.80 1728.90 3620.70
6. The future prospectus would be 40% in view of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] . Thus, the compensation works out to be Rs 4320 plus 40%, amounting to Rs 6048 per month. The appellant will not be able to use any artificial limb and would always have to depend for her daily chores and as she grows, she would suffer more physical and emotional distress. She would always require assistance of another person and frequent use of hired means of transport. In view of the said fact, we award compensation as follows:
10
NC: 2026:KHC:20458 MFA No. 2703 of 2017 HC-KAR Head Amount A Loss of future earnings due to the Rs.13,60,368 permanent disability for life (4320 + 1728 = 6048) x 12 x 18 B Medical Expenses including future Rs.5,00,000 expenses C Pain, suffering and loss of amenities Rs.5,00,000 D Loss of marriage prospects Rs.10,00,000 E One attendant charges (4624 x 12 x Rs.10,00,000
18) = 9,98,784 F Conveyance charges (as she has to Rs.10,00,000 move in a hired conveyance) Total Rs.53,06,368 Rounded off Rs.53,07,000 [Emphasis Supplied]
14. A similar view has been taken in the Hitesh Nagji case by the Supreme Court. It was held in cases involving a minor child who suffers death or permanent disability in a motor vehicle accident, the child cannot be treated as a non-earning individual merely because he or she was not engaged in gainful employment. The computation of compensation under the head of loss of income must be made by adopting, at the very least, the minimum wages 11 NC: 2026:KHC:20458 MFA No. 2703 of 2017 HC-KAR payable to a skilled workman as notified for the relevant period in the concerned State. The relevant extract of the Hitesh Nagji case is set below:
"9. On the aspect of monthly income of the minor appellant, we are inclined to interfere with the judgment and order of the Courts below. In the present case, it is evident that the Courts below have failed to take into account the monthly income of the appellant while determining the quantum of compensation. It is now a well-entrenched and consistently reiterated principle of law that a minor child who suffers death or permanent disability in a motor vehicle accident, cannot be placed in the same category as a non-earning individual for the purposes of assessing the amount of compensation because the child was not engaged in gainful employment at the time of the accident. In such a case, the computation of compensation under the head of loss of income ought to be made by adopting, at the very least, the minimum wages payable to a skilled workman as notified for the relevant period in the respective State where the cause of action arises. The said observation was rendered by this Court, in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and Ors., and Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Anr.
xxx xxx xxx
15. For the purpose of emphasis, it is again clarified here that when a Tribunal or the High Court in appeal, is concerned with the case involving a child having suffered injury or having passed away, the calculation of loss of income necessarily has to be made on the matric of minimum wages payable to a skilled worker in the respective State at the relevant point of time. It is our hope that this restatement helps avoiding such errors and thereby obviates the necessity of this Court's 12 NC: 2026:KHC:20458 MFA No. 2703 of 2017 HC-KAR interference, applying well-established principles of law."
[Emphasis Supplied]
15. The settled law in this behalf is thus that in case of a death or an injury of a minor child, the minimum wages of a skilled worker are to be awarded. The Impugned Award was, however, passed on 08.09.2016, which is prior to the judgments referred to being in force.
16. The Supreme Court in the case of Shivaleela & Ors. v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.7, while relying on the case of K. Ramya & Ors. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another.8 and Ningamma & Another. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.9, has held that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial and welfare legislation intended to provide compensation based on the contemporaneous position of an individual, adopting a forward-looking approach aimed at ensuring stability and continuity in the lives of victims 7 2025 SCC Online SC 563 8 2022 SCC Online SC 1338 9 (2009) 13 SCC 710 13 NC: 2026:KHC:20458 MFA No. 2703 of 2017 HC-KAR and their dependents. The Supreme Court has taken a view given in a beneficial legislation, if any enhancement is to be given, it is to be made in terms of the law as on that date. The relevant extract of Shivaleela case is below:
13. Thus, on an overall circumspection of the entire facts and circumstances of the cases and material on record, we opine that it may be reasonably assumed that the deceased was having a monthly income of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) per month. The compensation awarded by the High Court under the other heads, being in conformity with the law laid down by this Court in the decisions in Smt. Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, does not require any interference. In K.Ramya v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1338, after taking note of, inter alia, Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co.
Ltd., (2009) 13 SCC 710, the Court held that the '...Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 is a beneficial and welfare legislation that seeks to provide compensation as per the contemporaneous position of an individual which is essentially forward-looking. Unlike tortious liability, which is chiefly concerned with making up for the past and reinstating a claimant to his original position, the compensation under the Act is concerned with providing stability and continuity in peoples' lives in the future...' The present coram has respectfully restated the said observations in S Vishnu Ganga v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 182."
[Emphasis Supplied] 14 NC: 2026:KHC:20458 MFA No. 2703 of 2017 HC-KAR
17. The Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sonigra Juhi Uttamchand10, while relying to the M.A. Murthy case, has held that once a principle of law is enunciated by this Court, it has to be taken as the law from inception and is applicable to all pending matters, irrespective of the stage at which they stand. At the same time, it was clarified that such enunciation of law will not have the effect of reopening matters which have already attained finality solely for the purpose of applying the principle so laid down. It was held that awards and judgments passed prior to the pronouncement in Pranay Sethi case cannot be faulted for having fixed amounts under the conventional heads in excess of what was prescribed later. The relevant extract of the Sonigra Juhi Uttamchand case is set out below:
"12. In tune with the question of law No.'C', the respondent insurer took a ground in the appeal contending that the High Court had gone wrong in granting amount in excess of Rs 70,000 under the conventional heads. In this context, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent drew our 10 (2025) 3 SCC 23 15 NC: 2026:KHC:20458 MFA No. 2703 of 2017 HC-KAR attention to the law laid down by this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 :
(2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205]. Para 59.8 of the said decision would reveal that this Court held that under the conventional heads, only a total amount of Rs 70,000; the split-up being Rs 15,000 under the head loss of estate, Rs 40,000 under the head loss of consortium and Rs 15,000 towards funeral expenses, is grantable.
13. It is to be noted that after having held thus, this Court went on to hold that the amounts thus fixed under the conventional heads should be revisited every three years and the enhancement should be @ 10% in a span of three years. Even while taking into account the said position laid down by this Court in Pranay Sethi case [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 :
(2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205], we are of the view that the Tribunal and the High Court cannot be found at fault with fixing the amounts in excess of the aforesaid amounts fixed by this Court as the award and the judgment of the High Courts were passed prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of this Court in Pranay Sethi case [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 :
(2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] .
14. But at the same time, it is to be noted that in the decision in M.A. Murthy v. State of Karnataka [M.A. Murthy v. State of Karnataka, (2003) 7 SCC 517 :
2003 SCC (L&S) 1076 : (2003) 264 ITR 1 : 2003 INSC 447], this Court held that when in a decision this Court enunciates a principle of law, it is applicable to all cases irrespective of the stage of pendency thereof because it is to be assumed that what is enunciated by this Court is, in fact, the law from inception. We may hasten to add that we shall not be understood to have held that pursuant to enunciation of a principle of law, matters that attained finality shall be reopened solely for the purpose of applying the law thus laid. But at the same time, if the matter is pending, then, 16 NC: 2026:KHC:20458 MFA No. 2703 of 2017 HC-KAR irrespective of the stage, the principle cannot be ignored.
15. Now, we will consider the contention of the respondent insurer regarding the failure of the High Court to deduct one-third of the income while calculating the compensation payable by way of enhancement, in terms of the decision of this Court in Sarla Verma case [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121. This is because the decision in Sarla Verma case [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 was very much in force as a precedent since 15-4-2009. In view of the same, we are of the view that the respondents are justified in contending that the High Court ought to have deducted one-third of the income while calculating the compensation by way of enhancement, in terms of Sarla Verma case [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121".
[Emphasis Supplied]
18. Thus, on the second aspect of the matter, it is seen that the Impugned Award has been challenged before this Court by the appellant. Thus, the Impugned Award has not attained finality. In these circumstances, the law as applicable today is to be applied to calculate compensation.
19. It is undisputed that the appellant/claimant was a minor aged about 5 years, as on the date of the accident and that the accident happened in the year 2014. The notional income for the year 2014 was Rs.8,500/-. The 17 NC: 2026:KHC:20458 MFA No. 2703 of 2017 HC-KAR disability was 16% as set by the Doctor. The multiplier as per would be 18. Thus, the 'loss of dependency' would be calculated as follows:
Rs.8,500/- x 12 x 18 x 16% = Rs.2,93,760/-
20. The learned Tribunal has examined the injuries as well as the evidence of the Doctor, PW1 and found that there is nothing to contest the disability of the appellant. The learned Tribunal has also given a finding that the quantum of the disability arrived at by PW1 seems to be reasonable. However, the learned Tribunal awarded a global compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- under the head of compensation of 'pain and sufferings'. The award on 'future medical expenses' has also not been given.
21. Thus, the evidence has been given by the doctor in stating that 'future medical expenses' will be required to be paid. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the amounts to be awarded to the appellant/claimant are recalculated in the following manner:
18
NC: 2026:KHC:20458 MFA No. 2703 of 2017 HC-KAR Sl.No. Head Amount (Rs.)
1. Pain and suffering 40,000/-
2. Amenities 30,000/-
3. Attendant, conveyance 21,000/-
4. Loss of income during 25,500/-
treatment period
5. Loss of future income 2,93,760/-
Rs.8,500/- x 12 x 18 x 16%
6. Medical Expenses including 1,40,000/-
Future Medical Expenses Total 5,50,260/-
22. Hence, the appellant/claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.5,50,260/- along with interest at 6% per annum, from the date of petition till its realization.
23. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part;
(ii) The Judgment and Award dated 08.09.2016 passed in M.V.C.No.1328/2014 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, 19 NC: 2026:KHC:20458 MFA No. 2703 of 2017 HC-KAR Hassan is modified, enhancing the compensation by Rs.1,06,260/- along with interest at 6% per annum.
(iii) The respondent No.2/Insurance company is directed to pay the enhanced compensation with interest as awarded by the Tribunal within eight weeks from today.
(iv) On such deposit of compensation, the same shall be released in favour of the appellant/claimant, on filing of an appropriate application for withdrawal of the enhanced amount.
(v) The Registry is directed to draw the modified Award accordingly.
(vi) The Registry is directed transmit a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal, along with its records.
(vii) No order as to costs. Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, Sd/- BENGALURU (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE MD/JJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22 20