- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010090792021 NC: 2026:KHC:40003 MFA No. 2585 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2585 OF 2021(MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. CHANDANA W/O C N GIRISH, AGED 33 YEARS, OCCUPTION. HOUSEHOLD WORK RESIDING AT SHIVAMOGGA NOW AT CHIKKABUR VILLAGE, SORABA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA. 2. SRI C N GIRISH S/O R. NAGARAJ, AGED 41 YARS, OCCUPATION. SELF EMPLOYED RESIDING AT SHIVAMOGGA NOW AT CHIKKABUR VILLAGE, SORABA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. AKASH V.T, ADVOCATE) AND: Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010090792021 NC: 2026:KHC:40003 MFA No. 2585 of 2021 1. SMT. TAFAZUL BEGUM W/O MUNEER BAIG, AGED MAJOR, OCCUPATION. BUSINESS AND OWNR OF TH SWIFT CAR BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KA 17/Z-2733, RESIDING AT NALLUR, TALUK CHANNAGIRI DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED BRANCH MANAGER, B.H.ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C. SHANKARA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2, NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.30.10.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.298/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND AMACT-XIII, SORABA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010090792021 NC: 2026:KHC:40003 MFA No. 2585 of 2021 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT The claimants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and award dated 30.10.2019 passed in M.V.C.No.298/2018 by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT - XIII Court, Soraba (for short, 'the Tribunal'), whereby the Tribunal partly allowed the petition filed by the claimant and awarded a sum of Rs.3,75,000/- with 6% interest. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that on 29.10.2017 the deceased master Chinmaya, aged about 7 years was walking along with his parents near Chilur lake on the left side of the road. At that time, the driver of the car bearing registration No.KA-17-Z-2733 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the said Chinmaya. Due to the impact, he had sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries at the spot. Thereafter, the parents of the deceased have filed the - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010090792021 NC: 2026:KHC:40003 MFA No. 2585 of 2021 claim petition claiming compensation for the accidental death of their son. 3. The Tribunal upon assessment of oral and documentary evidence, partly allowed the claim petition as stated supra. The said judgment and award is challenged by the claimants in this appeal. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants- claimants and learned counsel for respondent No.2 - insurance company. Though the notice was served to respondent No.1, he remained unrepresented. 5. Apart from urging several contentions, the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants primarily contented that Tribunal has grossly erred in awarding a total compensation of Rs.3,75,000/- by placing reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in KISHAN GOPAL AND ANOTHER VS. LALA AND OTHERS, reported in (2014) 1 SCC 244, and LATA WADHWA - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010090792021 NC: 2026:KHC:40003 MFA No. 2585 of 2021 AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS, reported in (2001) 8 SCC 197. 6. By placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in KARUNA PARMAR VS. PRAKASH SINHA AND OTHERS, reported in (2025) SCC OnLine SC 3324, learned counsel submitted that, while determining compensation in the case of the death of a minor, the Hon'ble Apex Court assessed the loss of dependency by taking into consideration the wages payable under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. It is, therefore, contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the heads of loss of dependency, loss of estate and loss of consortium requires reassessment. Accordingly, he prayed for allowing the appeal. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.2–Insurance Company, while supporting the impugned judgment and award, contended that the Tribunal has rightly placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010090792021 NC: 2026:KHC:40003 MFA No. 2585 of 2021 Apex Court in KISHAN GOPAL & ANOTHER and LATA WADHWA & OTHERS (supra), as the deceased was a 7- year-old child at the time of the accident and, therefore, the question of awarding compensation towards loss of dependency did not arise. He further submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the other heads, aggregating to Rs.3,75,000/-, is just and proper and does not warrant interference. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 8. I have given my anxious consideration both to the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the entire evidence on record. 9. As could be gathered from the records, the occurrence of the accident and the death of Master Chinmaya in the said accident are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the offending car was covered by a - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010090792021 NC: 2026:KHC:40003 MFA No. 2585 of 2021 valid insurance policy as on the date of the accident, which was issued by respondent No.2. 10. The Tribunal, while awarding compensation, placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in KISHAN GOPAL & ANOTHER and LATA WADHWA & OTHERS (supra). However, subsequently, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in KARUNA PARMAR (supra), while dealing with a similar case involving the death of a minor aged about 6 years, awarded compensation under the heads of loss of dependency, loss of consortium and loss of estate by taking the notional income of the deceased in terms of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Paragraph Nos.14 and 15 of the said judgment read as follows: "14. Coming to the case of the deceased child, we are not inclined to accept the reasoning of the Tribunal on the yearly income. Recently, in Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Another 2024 SCC Online SC 3692, J. B.R. - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010090792021 NC: 2026:KHC:40003 MFA No. 2585 of 2021 Gavai, writing for the bench, has elaborated that: “29. This Court in the case of Kajal (supra) has held that taking notional income is not the correct approach. Instead, the minimum wages payable to a skilled workman in the concerned State has to be taken into consideration because, that would be the minimum amount which she would have earned on becoming a major. In this case, the minimum wage payable to a skilled workman in the State of Delhi at the time of the accident, i.e., 2nd June 2009, was Rs. 4,358/- per month.” (Emphasis supplied) 15. For this purpose, we advert to the notification under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, for a skilled worker in 2014 wherein Rs. 223/- per day has been fixed. The monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.6,690/-, and consequently, the yearly income of the deceased has to be considered as Rs.80,280/-" - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010090792021 NC: 2026:KHC:40003 MFA No. 2585 of 2021 11. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in HITESH NAGJIBHAI PATEL VS. BABABHAI NAGJIBHAI RABARI AND ANOTHER in Civil Appeal No.10278/2025, has reiterated the said principle in Paragraph No.15 of the said judgment, which reads as under: "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." 12. By placing reliance on above judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the compensation has to be reassessed. - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010090792021 NC: 2026:KHC:40003 MFA No. 2585 of 2021 13. As per the notification under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for a skilled worker in 2017, the minimum wages fixed at Rs.11,000/- per month. Since the deceased was aged about 7 years, an addition of 40% towards future prospects is required to be made to the said income. Thereafter, 50% is liable to be deducted towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.7,700/- (Rs.11,000 + 40% − 50%) 14. As the deceased was aged 6 years, a multiplier of '18' would have to be applied. Consequently, the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.16,63,200/- (7,700 x 12 x 18) towards “loss of dependency”. 15. The claimants, being the parents of the deceased, each would be entitled to a sum of Rs.48,400/- towards “loss of consortium” i.e., in all Rs.96,800/- (48,400 x 2) and they would also be entitled to a sum of Rs.36,300/- under the “conventional heads”. - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010090792021 NC: 2026:KHC:40003 MFA No. 2585 of 2021 16. Thus, the claimants, in modification of the impugned award, would be entitled to the following sums: Sl. No. Particulars Amount in (Rs.) 1. Loss of Dependency 16,63,200 2. Loss of Consortium 96,800 3. Loss of estate 36,300 Total 17,96,300 17. Accordingly, the claimants would be entitled for compensation of Rs.17,96,300/- as against Rs.3,75,000/- along with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till its realization. 18. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount, together with accrued interest, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. - 12 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010090792021 NC: 2026:KHC:40003 MFA No. 2585 of 2021 19. The apportionment of compensation amount shall be in terms of the award of the Tribunal. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE CR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5