MUTTAPPA BASAVANTHAPPA MUDENUR vs NAVEEN KUMAR R

Court
Karnataka High Court

NC: 2026: KHC:25966-DB
MFA No. 1342 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 1911 of 2020

HC-KAR




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

RD
DATED THIS THE 3 DAY OF JUNE, 2026

R
PRESENT

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI

AND

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1342 OF 2022(MV-D)

C/W

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1911 OF 2020(MV-D)


IN MFA No. 1342/2022 :


BETWEEN:

1. MUTTAPPA BASAVANTHAPPA MUDENUR,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
S/O BASAVANTHAPPA,

2. SHANTHA MUDENUR
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
W/O MUTTAPPA BASAVANTHAPPA MUDENUR,

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.1-115A,
DURGA NIVASRONA, BADAGUHITHLU,
BAPPANADY VILLAGE, MULKI POST,
MANGALORE TALUK-574 154.
…APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY.H., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. NAVEEN KUMAR.R
AGEDABOUT 38 YEARS,
S/O K.GANGADHARA,
R/AT DURGA NIVASA,








Digitally signed by
SUMATHY KANNAN
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNTAKA
1

NC: 2026: KHC:25966-DB
MFA No. 1342 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 1911 of 2020

HC-KAR


ULLAL BAIL POST,
ULLAL, MANGALORE TALUK-574154.

2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
KARKALA BRANCH,
SAMVRADDHI COMPLEX,
KARKALA-574104.

3. SATHYAPRAKASH.L.D.,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
S/O DEVEGOWDA,
R/AT. LALANAKERE,
B.NAVALE HOBLI,
NAGAMANGALA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401.

4.
THE BRANCH MANAGER,
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
HEAD OFFICE-III, E-8, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA,
SEETHAPURA, JAIPURA, RAJASTHAN STATE,
PIN CODE:302 022.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.PRADEEP., ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SRI. LAKSHMINARAYANA., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 & R3 DISPENSED WITH V/O/D:20.09.2022)

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.08.2019 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1057/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
ADDITIONAL MACT, KARKALA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.

IN MFA NO. 1911/2020
BETWEEN:

1. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
M/S. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
HEAD OFFICE-III, E-8 RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA,
2

NC: 2026: KHC:25966-DB
MFA No. 1342 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 1911 of 2020

HC-KAR


SEETHAPURA, JAIPURA,
RAJASTHAN STATE-302022.

NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS
M/S. SHRIRAM GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED.,
RD
NO.3/5, 3 FLOOR, S.V.ARCADE,
BIKELAHALI MAIN ROAD,
OFF BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BANGALORE-76302.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B.C.SHIVANNE GOWDA., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.
MUTTAPPA BASVANTHAPPA MUDENUR,
S/O BASAVANTHAPPA,
NOW AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

2. SMT. SHANTHA MUDENUR
W/O MUTTAPPA BASAVANTHAPPA MUDENNUR,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

BOTH ARE RESIDENT AT
NO.1-115A, DURGA NIVASA,
RONA, BADAGUHITHLU,
BAPPANADU VILLAGE,
MULKI POST, MANGALORE TALUK-574154.

3. NAVEEN KUMAR.R
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
S/O K.GANGADHAR,
R/O DURGA NIVASA,
ULLAL BAIL POST, ULLAL,
MANGALORE TALUK.

4. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
KARKALA BRANCH,
3

NC: 2026: KHC:25966-DB
MFA No. 1342 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 1911 of 2020

HC-KAR


SAMVRADDHI COMPLEX,
KARKALA.

5. SRI. SATHYAPRAKASH.L.D.
S/O SRI.DEVEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/AT LALANAKERE, B.NAVALE HOBLI,
NAGAMANGALA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H.PAVANACHANDRA SHETTY., ADVOCATE
FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. LAKSHMINARAYANA., ADVOCATE FOR R4;
R3-SERVED; R5-NOTICE DISPENSED WITH
V/O/D:01.08.2023)

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.08.2019 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1057/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND ADDITIONAL MACT, KARKALA, AND TO PASS SUCH
OTHER ORDER OR ORDERS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS
FIT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE,
INCLUDING COSTS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.

THESE APPEALS ARE COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
&
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU)

1. The present appeals seek to challenge the Judgment
and Award dated 27.08.2019, in MVC No.1057/2018,
4

NC: 2026: KHC:25966-DB
MFA No. 1342 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 1911 of 2020

HC-KAR


passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT,
Karkala (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Award’).
By the Impugned Award, the learned Tribunal has awarded
compensation to the appellants/claimants in a sum of
Rs.7,87,000/-, along with interest at 8% per annum from
the date of petition till its realisation.



2. The challenge in the present appeals has been raised
both by the appellant/insurance company, as well as by the
appellants/claimants. While MFA No.1911/2020 has been
filed by the Insurance company seeking to reduce the
compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, MFA
No.1342/2022 has been filed by the claimants seeking for
enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned
Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 20.05.2018 at
about 07.45 p.m., the 12 year old son of the claimants was
waiting at a Bus Stop, outside his School with his family
members. At that time, one Tourist Minibus bearing No.KA-
19-C-6991 was travelling from Mulky Vijaya College Road
5

NC: 2026: KHC:25966-DB
MFA No. 1342 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 1911 of 2020

HC-KAR


towards National Highway and entered NH 66 towards
Udupi. At the same time, a lorry bearing registration No.KA-
54-5314 came from Mangalore towards the Udupi side in a
rash and negligent manner and collided with the Minibus.
As a result of the collision, the Minibus turned turtle and fell
on top of the minor. This resulted in the minor sustaining
grievous injuries and succumbing to his injuries on the way
to the Hospital.
3.1 A claim petition seeking compensation was filed by the
parents of the deceased under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘MV Act’). It
was stated there that the deceased was aged about 12
years, studying sixth standard and had a good future. It was
further stated that large amounts were spent on the
Hospital charges, ambulance charges and other charges.

3.2 The claim petition was contested by the Insurance
Companies of both the vehicles involved in the accident i.e.,
the Lorry as well as the Minibus before the learned Tribunal.

6

NC: 2026: KHC:25966-DB
MFA No. 1342 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 1911 of 2020

HC-KAR


4. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the following
issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:
“1) Whether the petitioners prove that their son
Rakshith Kumar died in a Motor Vehicle Accident on
20.05.2018 at 7.45 p.m. at Sri.Durgaparameshwari
Temple Junction, Bappanadu Village, due to rash and
negligent driving of Mini bus bearing Reg.No.KA-19-C-
6991 and lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-54-5314by their
respective drivers as contended?

2) Whether the respondent No.2 proves that driver of
bus bearing Reg.No.KA-19-C-6991 had no valid and
effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident?
3) Whether the petitioners are entitled for the
compensation amount, if so what is the amount and from
whom it is recoverable?
4) What Order or Award?”
5. The appellant No.2 examined herself as PW-1 and
their Doctor as PW-2. A total of 46 documents were marked
as Exhibit-P1 to P46 by the appellant No.2, which included
Complaint (Exhibit-P2), accident information report
(Exhibit-P6), charge-sheet (Exhibit-P9), Copy of driving
license of the driver of the bus (Exhibit-P15), copy of the
insurance policy of the bus (Exhibit-P16), Copy of driving
7

NC: 2026: KHC:25966-DB
MFA No. 1342 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 1911 of 2020

HC-KAR


license of the driver of the lorry (Exhibit-P20), copy of the
insurance policy of the bus (Exhibit-P21), wound certificate
(Exhibit-25), disability certificate (Exhibit-26), Medical bills
(Exhibit-P31) and Medical prescriptions (Exhibit-P32).

6. The learned Tribunal found that valid Insurance
Policies existed for both the Lorry, as well as the Minibus.
In addition, it found that the rash and negligent driving was
proved. Based on the evidence before the learned Tribunal,
notional income of Rs.6,000/- per month was taken for
calculation of ‘loss of dependency’ and adding 30% towards
‘future prospects’ and deducting ½ towards personal
expenses, calculated notional income at the rate of
Rs.3,900/- per month, applying a multiplier of ‘15’, a sum
of Rs.7,02,000/- was awarded towards ‘loss of
dependency’. In addition, the learned Tribunal awarded
compensation towards ‘loss of love and affection’ and other
non-pecuniary heads in the following manner:
Sl.No. Particulars Amount
(Rs.)
1 Loss of Dependency 7,02,000/-
2 Loss of Love and Affection 50,000/-
8

NC: 2026: KHC:25966-DB
MFA No. 1342 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 1911 of 2020

HC-KAR


3 Obsequies Ceremony 25,000/-
4 Conveyance 10,000/-
TOTAL 7,87,000/-

6.1. Thus, an amount of Rs.7,87,000/-, along with interest
at 8% per annum was awarded.

7. As stated above, the challenge in the present appeal
i.e., MFA No.1911/2020 is by the insurer of the offending
Lorry.

8. Sri.Lakshminarayana , learned counsel appearing for
the appellant/Insurance Company submits that firstly, the
Impugned Award does not suffer from any infirmity since it
is based on the law, as it was available as on the date of the
accident. Secondly, he submits that 8% interest awarded
on the compensation is not in accordance with the settled
law. However, he fairly concedes that the notional income
for the year 2018 was Rs.12,500/- per month.
9. The learned counsel for the respondents/claimants
(appellants in MFA No.1342/2022) on the other hand
submits that the notional income for the year 2018 was
9

NC: 2026: KHC:25966-DB
MFA No. 1342 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 1911 of 2020

HC-KAR


Rs.12,500/- p.m., and thus the learned Tribunal has
wrongly adopted the notional income. Secondly, he submits
that the ‘loss of future prospects’ should have been taken
at 40% in terms of the judgment in the National
1
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi case. Further, on
the aspect of interest, the learned counsel submits that the
interest cannot be reduced, since this is a case of the death
of a minor child. The parents have lost their only son and
have suffered immensely. Reliance is placed on the recent
judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Malarvizhi vs.
2
United India Insurance case where interest at the rate
of 9% per annum has been upheld.

10. Based on the contentions of the parties the following
questions arise for determination before this Court:
1) Whether the appellants/claimants are entitled
for enhancement of the compensation amount
awarded by the learned Tribunal, if so, what is the
amount?

1
(2017) 16 SCC 680
2
(2020) 4 SCC 228
10

NC: 2026: KHC:25966-DB
MFA No. 1342 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 1911 of 2020

HC-KAR


2) Whether the rate of interest granted by the
learned Tribunal is as per law?

11. As already stated above, the challenge by the
appellants/claimants is on the award of the notional income.
It is not disputed that for the year 2018, as per the Notional
Income Chart of the Karnataka State Legal Services
Authority is Rs.12,500/- p.m. Thus, the notional income has
to be calculated at Rs.12,500/- per month.

12. The award of compensation for a death in the case of
a minor child is no longer res-integra . The Supreme Court
has crystallized the law applicable in the case of death of a
minor in a motor vehicle accident in (i) Minor Roopa D/o.
Basappa vs. Divisional Manager, New India
3
Assurance Company Limited (ii) Master Ayush vs.
Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance
4
Company Ltd. And Another .
12.1 The Supreme Court in Master Ayush case while
discussing entitlement of the compensation in the case of a

3
(2024) 12 SCC 2019
4
(2022) 7 SCC 738
11

NC: 2026: KHC:25966-DB
MFA No. 1342 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 1911 of 2020

HC-KAR


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
been able to earn after attaining maturity. The relevant
extract is set out below:
“9. In the present appeal, the minimum wages for 2010-
11 in the State of Karnataka for employments not covered
under any of the scheduled employments can be
ascertained from the following extract of notification for
minimum wages published in the Gazette on 19-2-2007:
“24. Employment not covered in any of the
Scheduled Employments Notification No. KAE 79
LMW 2005 dated 17-3-2006 Published in Gazette
dated 19-2-2007 Cost of Living Allowance to be
paid over and above 2703 points Cost of Living
Index: 3944-2703 = 1241 points Minimum wages
and VDA from 1-4-2010 to 31-3-2011

SCHEDULE

S.No. Class of
Employment
Minimum rates of wages payable
for different zones
Basic VDA Total
1 2 3 4 5
1. Highly skilled 2691.80 1116.90 3808.70
2. Skilled 2591.80 3808.70 3708.70
3. Semi-skilled 2041.80 1116.90 3158.70
4. Unskilled 1891.80 1116.90 3008.70

VDA: All categories of employees: 3 paise per point per
day over and above 2703 points.

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
12

NC: 2026: KHC:25966-DB
MFA No. 1342 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 1911 of 2020

HC-KAR


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. The law on this aspect was examined in a recent
judgment passed by one of us, Ms. Justice Tara Vitasta
Ganju in the case of Master Nikhil vs. S.T.Swamy Gowda
5
And Another . It was held that in relation to the death of
the minor child, compensation equivalent to minimum
wages in the State in the following terms:
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
6
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 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

5
MFA No. 2703/2017, dt.15.04.2026:NC:2026: KHC:20458
6
(2022) 7 SCC 738
13

NC: 2026: KHC:25966-DB
MFA No. 1342 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 1911 of 2020

HC-KAR


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,
7
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:

“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
Employment
Minimum rates of wages
payable for different zones
Basic VDA Total
1 2 3 4 5

7
(2024) 12 SCC 2019
14

NC: 2026: KHC:25966-DB
MFA No. 1342 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 1911 of 2020

HC-KAR


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:

Head Amount
A Loss of future earnings due
to the permanent disability
for life (4320 + 1728 =
6048) x 12 x 18
Rs.13,60,368
B Medical Expenses including
future expenses
Rs.5,00,000
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 18) =
9,98,784
Rs.10,00,000
F Conveyance charges (as
she has to move in a hired
conveyance)
Rs.10,00,000
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
15

NC: 2026: KHC:25966-DB
MFA No. 1342 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 1911 of 2020

HC-KAR


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 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
16

NC: 2026: KHC:25966-DB
MFA No. 1342 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 1911 of 2020

HC-KAR


helps avoiding such errors and thereby obviates the
necessity of this Court’s 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.
[Emphasis supplied]

14. In addition, this Court is unable to agree with the
contention of the learned counsel for the
appellants/claimants that the law as it was applicable as on
the date of the accident has to be considered. This appeal is
a continuation of the proceedings before the learned
Tribunal. The Impugned Award has not yet attained finality.

15. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare
legislation. It was framed to provide compensation based on
the contemporaneous position of law, and if any
enhancement is to be given, it must be made on the law as
on that date. The Supreme Court in the case of Shivaleela
& Ors. v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance
17

NC: 2026: KHC:25966-DB
MFA No. 1342 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 1911 of 2020

HC-KAR


8
Co. Ltd. & Ors . , while relying on the case of K. Ramya &
9
Ors. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. and
10
Ningamma & Anr. v. United India Insurance Co. 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 and their
dependents. This 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.

8
2025 SCC Online SC 563
9
2022 SCC Online SC 1338
10
(2009) 13 SCC 710
18

NC: 2026: KHC:25966-DB
MFA No. 1342 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 1911 of 2020

HC-KAR


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]



15.1 The Supreme Court in the case of New
India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sonigra Juhi
11
Uttamchand , while relying on 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 an 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

11
(2025) 3 SCC 23
19

NC: 2026: KHC:25966-DB
MFA No. 1342 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 1911 of 2020

HC-KAR


pronouncement in the 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 ourattention 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] .
20

NC: 2026: KHC:25966-DB
MFA No. 1342 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 1911 of 2020

HC-KAR


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,
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]
16. In the present case, it is undisputed that the minor
child was aged 12 years old as on the date of the accident
and that the accident occurred in the year 2018 and the
Notional Income Chart of the Karnataka State Legal
21

NC: 2026: KHC:25966-DB
MFA No. 1342 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 1911 of 2020

HC-KAR


Services Authority for 2018 is Rs.12,500/- p.m. In addition,
in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pranay
Sethi case, the future prospects is required to be taken at
40% since the deceased was minor and the appropriate
multiplier applicable would be ‘18’. Accordingly, the loss of
dependency is recomputed in the following manner:
Head Amount
Loss of Rs.12,500 + 40% = 17,500/-
dependency Rs.17,500x50%x12x18= 18,90,000/-

16.1 Further, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme
Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi ,
loss of consortium is payable at Rs.40,000/- each to
the appellants/claimants, amounting to Rs.80,000/-
(Rs.40,000x2). The appellants/claimants are entitled to
compensation under the conventional heads. Accordingly,
loss of estate and funeral expenses are awarded at
Rs.15,000/- each.
17. In addition, this Court agrees with the submission of
the learned counsel for the appellants that the accident was
22

NC: 2026: KHC:25966-DB
MFA No. 1342 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 1911 of 2020

HC-KAR


of the year 2018 and although the judgment of the learned
Tribunal was passed in the year 2019, no escalation has
been awarded on the ‘conventional heads’. The Supreme
Court in its judgment in the case of Pranay Sethi has
upheld the aforesaid principle of law. The relevant
paragraph is set out below:
“59.8. Reasonable figures on conventional heads,
namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral
expenses should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs
15,000 respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be
enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.”

17.1 Accordingly, escalation at the rate of 10% is also
awarded on the conventional heads. Thus, the revised
calculation would be as follows :
Sl.No. Particulars Amount (Rs.)
1 Loss of Dependency 18,90,000/-
2 Loss of Consortium 88,000/-
3 Loss of Estate 16,500/-
4 Funeral Expenses 16,500/-
TOTAL 20,11,000/-
Less: Awarded by the Tribunal 7,87,000/-
Enhanced compensation 12,24,000/-

18. Hence, the appellants/claimants are entitled to a total
compensation of Rs.12,24,000/- along with interest at 9%
23

NC: 2026: KHC:25966-DB
MFA No. 1342 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 1911 of 2020

HC-KAR


per annum as awarded by the learned Tribunal, from the
date of petition till its realization.

19. On the aspect of the interest at 8% awarded by the
Tribunal, one of us, Ms.Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju in the
recent judgment dated 01.06.2026 in the case of United
India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sri.Malyadri.M And
12
Others has examined this issue in detail and found that
the award of interest @ 9% per annum in cases of death
and in cases of permanent disability has been regularly
upheld by the Supreme Court. It is apposite to extract the
relevant portion of the judgment below:
29. An analysis of the aforegoing discussions of the
Supreme Court, reflects that the Supreme Court has
consistently held that the award of interest is intended to
recompensate the claimant for being deprived of the use
of money, which ought to have been paid at the time of
occurrence of the accident. The rate of interest, therefore,
must be just, fair and reasonable, having regard to the
prevailing economic conditions and bank rates.

29.1. The award of interest is usually determined at
the prevailing bank rate of interest on a case-to-
case basis and at the rate which is just and fair and
reasonable.

29.2 T here cannot be any ‘straitjacket formula’ in
determining the rate of interest and that the same

12
MFA No.3895 OF 2018, dtd.01.06.2026: NC: 2026: KHC:25458
24

NC: 2026: KHC:25966-DB
MFA No. 1342 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 1911 of 2020

HC-KAR


must depend on the facts and circumstances of each
case. The guiding principle remains that the rate
must neither be punitive nor non-existent but must
strike a balance between fairness to the claimant
and reasonableness to the insurer.

29.3 The rate of interest 9% is more appropriate in
case involving death and serious injury especially,
where there is a long delay in the claimants
receiving the compensation.

30. In the present case, the accident occurred in the year
2016 leading to the death of the wife of respondent No.1
and mother of respondent Nos.2 and 3. The award came
to be passed in the year 2018. The learned Tribunal has
deemed it apposite to award interest on the compensation
@ 9% per annum. The award of interest is not punitive as
is fair considering the prevailing economic condition and
bank rates. In addition, it is now 10 years since the date
of the accident.

31. The learned Trial Court has awarded interest at the
rate of 9% per annum. This Court finds no infirmity with
the Impugned Award of 9% interest in the circumstances
of the present case.
[Emphasis Supplied]

20. In view thereof, this Court is not inclined to interfere
with the interest awarded by the learned Tribunal in the
present case.
21. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

ORDER
(i) The appeal in MFA No.1342/2022 is allowed
in part;
25

NC: 2026: KHC:25966-DB
MFA No. 1342 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 1911 of 2020

HC-KAR


(ii) The appeal in MFA No.1911/2020 is dismissed;
(ii) The Judgment and Award dated 27.08.2019, in
MVC No.1057/2018, passed by the Senior Civil
Judge and Additional MACT, Karkala is modified,
enhancing the compensation by Rs.12,24,000/-
along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum as
awarded by the learned Tribunal from the date of
petition till realization;
(iii)The remaining portion of the Impugned Award of
the Tribunal remains undisturbed;
(iv) The appellant/Insurance company is directed to
pay the enhanced compensation with interest as
awarded by the Tribunal within eight weeks from
today;
(v) On such deposit of compensation, the same shall
be released in favour of the appellants/claimants, on
26

NC: 2026: KHC:25966-DB
MFA No. 1342 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 1911 of 2020

HC-KAR


filing of an appropriate application for withdrawal of
the enhanced amount;
(vi) The amounts deposited by the Insurance
company, if any, shall be transferred to the
concerned Tribunal for disbursement.
(vii) The Registry is directed to draw the modified
Award accordingly;
(viii) The Registry is directed transmit a copy of this
judgment along with its records and the amounts
deposited by the Insurance Company to the concerned
Tribunal forthwith;
(ix) No order as to costs.

Sd/-
(JAYANT BANERJI)
JUDGE


Sd/-
(TARA VITASTA GANJU)

JUDGE
JJ/YN
List No.1, Sl. No.: 17
27