[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri. Syed Aslam vs Sri. M S Dinesh on 23 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:16307
M.F.A. No.10300/2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.10300/2018 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. SYED ASLAM
S/O SRI. SYED NAWAB
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.
2. SMT. SHABINA
Digitally signed W/O SRI SYED ASLAM
by ARSHIFA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS.
BAHAR KHANAM
Location: HIGH BOTH ARE R/AT. BARABARA BEEDHI
COURT OF MAGADI MAIN ROAD
KARNATAKA
RAMANAGARA.
PRESENTLY R/A NO.50, 4TH MAIN
8TH CROSS, VIJAYANAGRA
BENGALURU-560040.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. N.R. NAIK, ADV.,)
AND:
1. SRI. M.S. DINESH
S/O SRI. SHANKARAIAH
MACHAGHATTA
NONAVINAKERE HOBLI
TIPATUR TALUK
TUMKUR-572224.
2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:16307
M.F.A. No.10300/2018
HC-KAR
REGIONAL OFFICE
5TH FLOOR, KRUSHI BHAVANA
NRUPATHUGNA ROAD
HUDSON CIRCLE
BENGALURU-560027.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.S. KRISHNA, ADV., FOR R2
V/O/DTD:12.09.2022, NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:07/07/2018, PASSED IN MVC
NO.1732/2015, ON THE FILE OF THE XXII ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE & MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, 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 MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the parents seeking for higher
compensation challenging the judgment and award dated
07.07.2018 passed in MVC.No.1732/2015 by the XXII
Additional Small Causes Judge & Member, MACT,
Bengaluru, (for short 'the Tribunal').
NC: 2026:KHC:16307
HC-KAR
2. Though this appeal is listed for admission, with
the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it is
taken up for final disposal.
3. Sri.N.R.Naik, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants submits that the Tribunal has erred in assessing
the income of the deceased minor at Rs.15,000/- per
annum. He therefore seeks to reassess the income of the
deceased minor on the basis of minimum wages and the
award of compensation under the heads of loss of
dependency, consortium and other miscellaneous
expenses and seeks to allow the appeal.
4. Per contra, Sri.B.S.Krishna, learned counsel for
respondent No.2 supports the impugned judgment and
award of the Tribunal and seeks to dismiss the appeal.
5. I have heard the arguments on both the sides
and meticulously perused the material available on record.
NC: 2026:KHC:16307
HC-KAR
6. The parties to the proceedings do not dispute
that in a road accident on 29.05.2014, the son of the
appellants sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to
the same. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was
aged about 8 years at the time of the accident. The
Tribunal, considered the evidence on record and awarded
a total compensation of Rs.2,75,000/- along with the
interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of
petition till the date of deposit.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari
and Another1 held as under:
"9. 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
2025 INSC 1070
NC: 2026:KHC:16307
HC-KAR
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 Ors2 , and
Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and
Anr3
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 interference, applying well-
established principles of law."
8. Keeping in mind the enunciation of law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case referred
supra, I am of the considered view that the minimum
wage of the minor must be notionally assessed and the
appropriate multiplier to be applied to determine the
(2020) 4 SCC 413
2024 SCC Online SC 3692
NC: 2026:KHC:16307
HC-KAR
compensation. Admittedly, the deceased was aged about 8
years and accident is of the year 2014. Considering these
factual matrix, the income of the deceased is notionally
assessed at Rs.8,500/- per month by placing reliance on
the notional income chart prepared by the KSLSA. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision has
applied a multiplier of 18, wherein the deceased was aged
about 8 years. Accordingly, it would be appropriate to
apply a multiplier of 18 to assess the compensation under
the head of loss of dependency. Having assessed the
income of the deceased at Rs.8,500/- per month and
considering the age of the deceased minor as 8 years, the
appellants-claimants are further entitled to an addition of
40% of the assessed income under the head of loss of
future prospects in view of the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National
Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and
Others4. The appellants are the parents of the deceased
(2017) 16 SCC 680
NC: 2026:KHC:16307
HC-KAR
and they are entitled to compensation under the head of
loss of consortium as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Magma General
Insurance Co.Ltd v Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and
Others5. It is not in dispute that the deceased was a
minor at the time of the accident; hence, an appropriate
deduction would be 50% of the assessed income towards
the personal and living expenses of the deceased in view
of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Smt.Sarla Verma and Others v Delhi
Transport Corporation and Another6. Hence, the
appellants-claimants are entitled to compensation towards
loss of dependency as under:
Rs.8,500 + 40% X 12 X 18 - 50% = Rs.12,85,200/-
9. The appellants-claimants would also be entitled
to a sum of Rs.15,000/- under the head of 'loss of estate'
and Rs.15,000/- under the head of 'funeral expenses &
(2018) 18 SCC 130
(2009) 6 SCC 121
NC: 2026:KHC:16307
HC-KAR
transportation of dead body'. The appellants-claimants are
also entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards loss
of consortium.
10. Thus, in all, the appellants-claimants shall be
entitled to modified compensation under the following
heads:
HEADS AMOUNT
(in Rs.)
Loss of dependency 12,85,200/-
Loss of consortium (Rs.40,000 X 2) 80,000/-
Transportation of dead body & funeral 15,000/-
expenses
Loss of estate 15,000/-
Total 13,95,200/-
Thus, the claimants shall be entitled to a total
compensation of Rs.13,95,200/- as against
Rs.2,75,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
11. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
a) Appeal is allowed in part.
NC: 2026:KHC:16307
HC-KAR
b) The impugned judgment and award of the
Tribunal is modified to an extent that the
claimants would be entitled to total
compensation of Rs.13,95,200/- as
against Rs.2,75,000/- awarded by the
Tribunal.
c) The compensation amount shall carry
interest at the rate of 6% per annum from
the date of petition till the date of payment.
d) The Insurance Company shall deposit the
enhanced compensation amount with
accrued interest before the Tribunal within a
period of six weeks from the date of receipt
of certified copy of this judgment.
e) Out of the total compensation, 50% shall be
awarded to Appellant No.1 and 50% to
Appellant No.2. Out of their share, 50% of
the award amount shall be kept in fixed
deposit in any Nationalized Bank/Schedule
Bank for a period of three (3) years. The
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:16307
HC-KAR
appellants are at liberty to withdraw the
periodical interest.
f) Draw modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
ABK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6
