SRI. B.RANJITH KUMAR vs SRI.M. SHIVAKUMAR

NC: 2026:KHC:20851
MFA No. 6726 of 2019


HC-KAR




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 16 DAY OF APRIL, 2026

R

BEFORE

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
1
Limited 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

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
2
Ahmad Simon and Another and subsequently in the
case of Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel vs. Bababhai Nagjibhai
3
Rabari & Another 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
4
Insurance Company Ltd. & Another 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,
5
New India Assurance Company Limited 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

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:

[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.
6
Ltd. & Ors. , while relying on the case of K. Ramya &
7
Ors. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another . and
Ningamma & Another. v. United India Insurance Co.
8
Ltd. , 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
9
Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sonigra Juhi Uttamchand ,
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:

19

NC: 2026:KHC:20851
MFA No. 6726 of 2019

HC-KAR

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 by
TARA VITASTA GANJU
Location: HIGH
COURT OF KARNTAKA

Sd/-
(TARA VITASTA GANJU)
JUDGE
JJ
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3
21