Karnataka High Court
Sri. B.Ranjith Kumar vs Sri.M. Shivakumar on 16 April, 2026
NC: 2026:KHC:20851
MFA No. 6726 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE R
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6726 OF 2019(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI. B.RANJITH KUMAR
S/O BALAJI MODALIAR,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
R/AT DOOR NO.869/3,
KASABA STREET,
KUMBARAPALYA,
MULBAGAL TOWN AND TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT,
PIN CODE-563 131.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. T.N.VISHWANTHA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. M.SHIVAKUMAR
MAJOR,
S/O MASIYAN,
R/AT NO.45, CHAMARADDYHALLI,
MULBAGAL TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101.
2. M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
BRANCH OFFICE,
SUGUNA NURSING HOME COMPLEX,
ANTHARAGANGE ROAD,
NEAR K.S.R.T.C. BUS STAND,
KOLAR CITY AND DISTRICT, PIN CODE: 563 101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.C.SHIVANNE GOWDA., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1-SERVED)
1
NC: 2026:KHC:20851
MFA No. 6726 of 2019
HC-KAR
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.12.2018 PASSED IN MVC
NO.273/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE MACT & SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, MULBAGAL, 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. Though the matter is listed for Admission today, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for Hearing and Final Disposal today.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the injured appellant/claimant who was a minor before the Tribunal, seeking to challenge the Judgment and Award dated 22.12.2018, in MVC No.273/2016, passed by the MACT And Senior Civil Judge, Mulbagal, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Impugned Award').
2
NC: 2026:KHC:20851 MFA No. 6726 of 2019 HC-KAR
3. The brief admitted facts in this case are that the appellant/claimant was riding as a pillion rider alongwith his uncle on a motorcycle on 30.07.2016, at around 08.30 a.m., and when they reached near Srinivasa Kalyana Mantapa, Guniganti Palya Circle, at that time one JCB vehicle bearing registration No.KA-07/M-6581, collided with the motorcycle. As a result of the accident, the minor sustained injuries, which led to the filing of the claim petition.
4. The claim petition was contested by the owner of the JCB, as well as by its insurer i.e., respondent no. 2. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:
"1. Whether the petitioner proves that the accident occurred on 30-07-2016 at 8-30 a.m. in front of Srinivasa Kalyana Mantapa, Guniganti Palya, Mulbagal Town is due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of JCB vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-07-M-6581 due to which he has sustained grievous injuries?
2. Whether the Respondent No.2 proves that the drivers of JCB vehicle bearing No.ΚΑ-07-M-6581 and the motor cycle bearing No.KA-07-S-7173 do not possess valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident?3
NC: 2026:KHC:20851 MFA No. 6726 of 2019 HC-KAR
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom?
4. What order or award?"
5. To substantiate the case, the father of the minor i.e., appellant/claimant was examined as PW1 and documents were marked. The Doctor who treated the appellant/claimant was examined as PW2 and he also gave his evidence qua Exhibit-P10 to P13.
6. The learned Tribunal found that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver/owner. In addition, the learned Tribunal after examining the evidence placed before it and relying on the judgment in the case of Master Mallikarjun vs. Divisional Manager National Insurance Company Limited1 and finding that the disability was 13% awarded a Global Compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- and the compensation under the following heads:
1 2014 (14) SCC 396 4 NC: 2026:KHC:20851 MFA No. 6726 of 2019 HC-KAR Sl.No. Particulars Amount (Rs.) 01 Towards pain and sufferings mental 3,00,000/-
and physical shock hardship;
inconvenience and discomfort and loss of amenities in life on account of permanent disability 02 Towards Medical Expenses 1,30,671/-
03 Towards Conveyance loss of earning in the parents and towards other 10,000/-
incidental expenses TOTAL 4,40,671/-
7. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the appeal is a continuation of the proceedings before the learned Tribunal and that in view of the recent Judgments, the law in Master Mallikarjun case is no longer good law. He submits that the Supreme Court in the cases of Baby Sakshi Greola vs. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Another2 and subsequently in the case of Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel vs. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Another3 has held that the compensation for a 2 (2024) SCC Online SC 3692 3 2025 INSC 1070 5 NC: 2026:KHC:20851 MFA No. 6726 of 2019 HC-KAR minor be calculated, as per the minimum wages of a skilled worker.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant further submits that in the State of Karnataka, the Notional Income Chart is equivalent to the Minimum Wages Calculation. Thus, it is contented that the Global Compensation could not have been awarded, but the calculations should have been accorded differently. In addition, he contends that despite the evidence of the Doctor, PW2, no amounts were awarded for 'Future Medical Expenses'. Lastly, it is contended by the learned counsel to appellant/claimant, that the amounts awarded under non-pecuniary heads were also inadequate.
9. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand contends that since the award was passed in the year 2018, the law that was applicable as on that day was required to be taken up for consideration. In addition, it was contended that, whether or not the appellant/claimant 6 NC: 2026:KHC:20851 MFA No. 6726 of 2019 HC-KAR required additional surgery after passing of the Impugned Award was not proved.
10. 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?
11. 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. & Another4 while discussing entitlement of the compensation in the case of a minor child held that minimum wages in the State where the 4 (2022) 7 SCC 738 7 NC: 2026:KHC:20851 MFA No. 6726 of 2019 HC-KAR 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 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]
12. A similar view was taken by the Supreme Court in Minor Roopa D/o Basappa v. Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited5 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:
5 (2024) 12 SCC 2019 8 NC: 2026:KHC:20851 MFA No. 6726 of 2019 HC-KAR "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 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 9 NC: 2026:KHC:20851 MFA No. 6726 of 2019 HC-KAR 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:
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]
13. A similar view has been taken in the Hitesh Nagji Bhai Patel 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 payable to a skilled 10 NC: 2026:KHC:20851 MFA No. 6726 of 2019 HC-KAR 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 11 NC: 2026:KHC:20851 MFA No. 6726 of 2019 HC-KAR interference, applying well-established principles of law."
[Emphasis Supplied]
14. 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 29.08.2018, which is prior to the judgments referred to being in force.
15. The Supreme Court in the case of Shivaleela & Ors. v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.6, while relying on the case of K. Ramya & Ors. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another.7 and Ningamma & Another. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.8, 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 6 2025 SCC Online SC 563 7 2022 SCC Online SC 1338 8 (2009) 13 SCC 710 12 NC: 2026:KHC:20851 MFA No. 6726 of 2019 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] 13 NC: 2026:KHC:20851 MFA No. 6726 of 2019 HC-KAR
16. The Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sonigra Juhi Uttamchand9, 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 9 (2025) 3 SCC 23 14 NC: 2026:KHC:20851 MFA No. 6726 of 2019 HC-KAR granting amount in excess of Rs 70,000 under the conventional heads. In this context, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent drew our 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 15 NC: 2026:KHC:20851 MFA No. 6726 of 2019 HC-KAR 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, 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]
17. 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.
18. It is undisputed that the appellant/claimant was a minor as on the date of the accident and that the accident 16 NC: 2026:KHC:20851 MFA No. 6726 of 2019 HC-KAR happened in the year 2016. The notional income for the year 2016 was Rs.9,500/-. The disability was 13% as set by the Doctor. The multiplier as per would be 18. Thus, the 'loss of dependency' would be calculated as follows:
Rs.9,500 x 13/100 x 18 x 12 = Rs.2,66,760/-
19. The learned Tribunal has examined the injuries as well as the evidence of the Doctor, PW3 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 PW2 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.
20. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant has also handed across a certified copy of the evidence of the Doctor. The Doctor in his evidence sets out that the disability assessment co-relates with the problems 17 NC: 2026:KHC:20851 MFA No. 6726 of 2019 HC-KAR mentioned by the patient of being unable to kneel, squat and stand on one leg. He further finds that the implants which have been put in the left lower limb will require to be removed. The relevant extract is of the evidence of the Doctor, PW-2 is set out below:
"9. Problem statement: The patient says that he was a student before the accident. He says that he is still studying He says that he has experienced academic failure because of the accident. He says that he has pain and difficulty in kneeling squatting sitting cross legged and climbing stairs and slopes. He says that he gets pain on walking on long distances. He says that he feels stiffness in his left toe at times. He says that he gets pain and stiffness in his left hip and left knee. He says that he is unable to run and play sports.
10 Disability assessment was done referring to the Gazette of India Manual jan 2018 11 Lower limb-mobility flexion -100 deg left hip (normal 125 deg) extension-10 deg left hip (normal 15 deg) abduction-35 deg left hip (normal 45 deg) adduction-25 deg left hip (normal 30 deg) external rotation 30 deg left hip (normal 45 deg) internal rotation-30 deg left hip (normal 40 deg) left hip-9% left knee flexion-110 deg (normal 135 deg) Extension 10 deg (normal 10 deg) left knee-4% 12 Stability component-
Squatting-7% Kneeling-6% Crosslegged-6% Standing on one leg-5% 18 NC: 2026:KHC:20851 MFA No. 6726 of 2019 HC-KAR Stairs-5% Slopes-5% Both legs-3% Turns-3%
13. Using the Combined values formula ready reckoner chart and with reference to the gazette of India Jan 2018 pg 110, 111 and 69 Lower limb disability is -40% Whole body Disability-13%
14. Note:
The findings mentioned in the disability assessment correlate with the problems mentioned by the patient in the problem statement.
He require implant removal left lower limb which [ will cost Rs 60,000."
[Emphasis Supplied]
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:
Sl.No. Particulars Amount (Rs.)
01. Loss of Future Income 2,66,760/-
02. Pain & Suffering 40,000/-
03. Loss of Amenities 30,000/-
04. Attendant, Conveyance & 25,000/-
Nourishment
05. Loss of Income During Laid up 30,000/-
19
NC: 2026:KHC:20851
MFA No. 6726 of 2019
HC-KAR
Period
06. Medical Expenses 1,30,671/-
07. Future Medical Expenses 40,000/-
Total 5,62,431/-
Less: Awarded by the Tribunal 4,40,671/-
Enhanced compensation 1,21,759/-
22. Hence, the appellant/claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.5,62,431/- 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 22.12.2018, in MVC No.273/2016, passed by the MACT And Senior Civil Judge, Mulbagal, is modified, enhancing the compensation by Rs.1,21,759/-
along with interest at 6% per annum.
20
NC: 2026:KHC:20851 MFA No. 6726 of 2019 HC-KAR
(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 byTARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF Sd/-KARNTAKA
(TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE JJ List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3 21