VENKATESH vs MOLALLI
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11344
MFA No. 202413 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030089822026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
TH
DATED THIS THE 14 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BRUNGESH M
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.202413 OF 2026 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
VENKATESH S/O GOVARDHAN RATHOD,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: GOVT. SERVANT,
R/O. PLOT NO.75, GAYATRI NILAYA,
SHAKTI NAGAR, KALABURAGI.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. KRUPA SAGAR PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MOLALLI S/O MATABSAB,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS AND OWNER OF
VEHICLE BEARING NO.KA.32.AA.3535,
R/O. BATTARGA, DHANGAPUR ALAND,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585 213.
2. THE MANAGER,
CHOLAMANDALAM MS GIC LTD.,
OPP. HBN HOSPITAL, STATION ROAD,
KALABURAGI-585 102.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH MALLAYYA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
V/O DATED 15.09.2026, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
Digitally signed by
BASALINGAPPA S
D
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11344
MFA No. 202413 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030089822026
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO,
MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE IV
ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, KALABURAGI IN
M.V.C. NO.1211/2023, DATED 23.06.2026, BY ENHANCING
THE COMPENSATION AS PRAYED FOR.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
`
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BRUNGESH M
ORAL JUDGMENT
The present appeal is preferred by the appellant
namely Sri. Venkatesh son of Govardhan Rathod, calling in
question the legality, correctness and propriety of the
judgment and award dated 23.06.2026 passed by the IV
Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Kalaburagi in MVC
No.1211/2023.
2. The present appellant was the petitioner,
whereas the present respondents No.1 and 2 were
respondents No.1 and 2 respectively before the Tribunal in
MVC No.1211/2023.
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11344
MFA No. 202413 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030089822026
3. For the sake of convenience and clarity and to
avoid confusion, the parties shall be referred to as per
their rankings assigned to them before the Tribunal in MVC
No.1211/2023.
4. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are
as follows:
5. It is the specific case of the petitioner-
Venkatesh that on 20.03.2023, at about 4.00 p.m.,
Aryavardhan was standing in front of house of Nilakant,
near Railway Station at Chittapur. The petitioner also
contends that the said Aryavardhan is his son. The
petitioner also contends that when the said Aryavardhan
(hereinafter referred to as “deceased boy” for brevity) was
also standing near the aforesaid house of Nilakant, the
Ashok Leyland vehicle bearing registration No.KA-32/AA-
3535 (hereinafter referred to as “offending vehicle” for
brevity) was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent
manner and at high speed and dashed to the deceased
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11344
MFA No. 202413 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030089822026
boy. It is the further case of the petitioner that due to the
said accident, said Aryavardhan-the deceased boy,
sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries
while being shifted to hospital.
6. The petitioner also contends that the Chittapur
police have registered a criminal case against the driver of
the offending vehicle.
7. The petitioner also contends that at the time of
accident and his death, the said deceased boy was aged
about two years. The petitioner also contends that the
accident had taken place because of the exclusive
negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle.
Amongst other formal grounds, the petitioner filed the said
MVC No.1211/2023 seeking suitable compensation.
8. After the presentation of the petition, the same
came to be registered and notices were issued to the
respondents. The respondents entered their appearance
before the Tribunal and filed their separate written
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11344
MFA No. 202413 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030089822026
statements. The respondent No.1 namely Molalli son of
Matabsab has specifically and categorically denied every
allegation of fact made by the petitioner. Further, the
respondent No.1 also had stated before the Tribunal that
at the time of the accident, the vehicle which is shown as
the offending vehicle was covered with valid insurance
policy issued by the respondent No.2 and the driver who
was driving the said vehicle did possess valid and effective
driving license. By contending so, the respondent No.1
prayed for dismissal of the petition.
9. The respondent No.2 namely Cholamandalam
MS GIC Limited filed its separate written statement. Even
insurance company also has specifically denied all the
material allegations made by the petitioner and finally
prayed for dismissal of the petition.
10. After completion of the pleadings, the Tribunal
framed three issues and one additional issue. Thereafter,
the learned Tribunal afforded reasonable opportunities to
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11344
MFA No. 202413 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030089822026
the parties to lead their respective evidence. The
petitioner namely Venkatesh has examined himself as
PW1. The petitioner got marked seven documents as per
Exs.P1 to P7.
11. Per contra , the respondents did not adduce any
evidence either oral or documentary.
12. After completion of the evidence, the learned
Tribunal heard the arguments of learned counsel
appearing for the parties and thereafter, proceeded to
pass the impugned judgment on 23.06.2026. The learned
Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.5,15,000/- together
with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of
petition till realization.
13. The record also shows that the learned Tribunal
has directed respondent No.2-Cholamandalam Insurance
Company to satisfy the award.
14. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner/appellant, who is
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11344
MFA No. 202413 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030089822026
none other than the father of the deceased boy has
preferred the present appeal.
15. The learned counsel for the appellant Sri. Krupa
Sagar Patil, would contend that the learned Tribunal
placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court
in Kishan Gopal v. Lala and Another, reported in
. The learned counsel for the appellant
(2014) 1 SCC 244
would further contend that the learned Tribunal ought to
have decided the matter by applying the ratio laid down by
the Hon’ble Apex Court in its recent judgment in
Hiteshbhai Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai
Rabari and Another , reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC
3446 .
16. Per contra , the learned counsel for the
Insurance Company, Sri.Manjunath Mallayya Shetty would
contend that the learned Tribunal has correctly assessed
the compensation payable to the petitioner and has
applied the law prevailing as on the date of the judgment.
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11344
MFA No. 202413 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030089822026
Therefore, the judgment of the Tribunal does not call for
any interference by this Court.
17. It is necessary to note that the impugned
judgment was passed by the learned Tribunal on
23.06.2026. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court delivered its
judgment in Hiteshbhai Nagjibhai Patel ’s case in the
year 2025 itself. Therefore, it becomes clear that the
learned Tribunal has not bestowed its attention upon the
ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Hiteshbhai
Nagjibhai Patel’s case.
18. This Court has carefully gone through the
judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Hiteshbhai
Nagjibhai Patel’s (supra), At paragraph 9 of the said
judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:
“9. It is now 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-
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11344
MFA No. 202413 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030089822026
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.”
19. In view of the law declared by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in Hiteshbhai Nagjibhai Patel ( supra ), this Court
is required to reassess the income of the deceased boy.
Though the deceased boy was a minor child, his income
has to be assessed by treating the minimum wages
prescribed for a skilled workman as the benchmark, and
the compensation is required to be computed accordingly.
20. The next question that arises for consideration
is as to what was the minimum wage payable to a skilled
workman in the State of Karnataka during the year 2023.
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11344
MFA No. 202413 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030089822026
In this regard, the Division Bench of this Court, in MFA
No.4793/2016 C/w MFA No.4556/2016 in the case of
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company v. E.C.
Asha has specifically held that the minimum wages
prescribed for skilled labour and the notional income fixed
by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority are
almost equal. Therefore, whenever the Court is required to
assess the income of a minor victim by taking the
minimum wages prescribed for skilled labour as the
benchmark, the notional income fixed by the Karnataka
State Legal Services Authority can safely be adopted.
21. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the income of the deceased can be assessed
on the basis of the notional income chart published by the
Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. As per the said
chart, the notional income for the year 2023 is fixed at
Rs.15,500/- per month. Further, as the deceased boy was
below 15 years of age, in view of the ratio laid down by
the Hon’ble Apex Court, the multiplier of 18 is applicable.
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11344
MFA No. 202413 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030089822026
22. The next question for consideration is with
regard to the deduction towards the personal and living
expenses of the deceased boy. In Sarla Verma v. Delhi
Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121,
upon consideration of the earlier precedents, the Hon’ble
Apex Court has held that where the deceased was
unmarried, 50% of the established income is required to
be deducted towards the personal and living expenses of
the deceased.
23. Further, in National Insurance Company
Limited v. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 (16) SCC
680, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that where the
deceased was below 40 years of age and was self-
employed, 40% of the assessed income is required to be
added towards future prospects. 40% of Rs.15,500/-
works out to Rs.6,200/-. By adding these amounts, the
total works out to Rs.21,700/- per month.
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11344
MFA No. 202413 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030089822026
24. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of
the present case, it is to be reiterated that, at the time of
the accident and his resultant death, the deceased boy
was only two years of age. Therefore, 40% of the notional
income of the deceased is required to be added towards
future prospects.
25. However, before arriving at any final
conclusion, it is necessary to give due consideration to the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the
Insurance Company.
26. Sri.Manjunath Mallayya Shetty, learned counsel
for the Insurance Company would contend that the
deceased boy was not survived by his mother and that
only his father has survived him. It is further submitted
that in Sarla Verma (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has
made it clear that under normal circumstances, while
computing compensation payable in respect of an
unmarried person who loses his life in a road traffic
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11344
MFA No. 202413 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030089822026
accident, the mother alone is ordinarily to be considered
as dependent on the income of the deceased, and the
father cannot be treated as dependent on the income of
the accident victim. The learned counsel for the Insurance
Company would further submit that in the present case,
the petitioner is a Government employee and is the father
of the deceased boy. Therefore, according to the learned
counsel, the question of loss of dependency does not arise
at all.
27. This Court has given its anxious consideration
to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
Insurance Company. A plain reading of Sections 166, 167
and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, makes it clear
that a legal representative can maintain a petition seeking
compensation for the death of a person who was killed in a
road traffic accident, subject to the applicable statutory
requirements. Further, irrespective of the religion to which
the deceased boy belonged, the fact remains that his
father is a legal representative of the deceased. The legal
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11344
MFA No. 202413 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030089822026
status of a father as a legal representative is recognised
under the applicable personal laws, including Hindu,
Mohammedan and Christian laws, subject to the relevant
legal provisions. Further, in Birender v. Mukesh Kumar
reported in (2020) 11 SCC 356 , the Hon’ble Apex Court
has held that a legal representative of a deceased accident
victim may maintain a claim for compensation
notwithstanding the absence of financial dependency.
Therefore, being the father of the deceased, the
petitioner-Venkatesh was entitled to maintain a petition
seeking compensation for the death of his son.
28. This Court now turns its attention to another
important contention raised by the learned counsel for the
Insurance Company, which is with reference to
dependency. The submission made by the learned counsel
for the Insurance Company is factually correct to the
extent that the deceased boy was only about two years of
age at the time of the accident. Therefore, it cannot
reasonably be presumed that the deceased boy was
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11344
MFA No. 202413 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030089822026
earning an income and maintaining either his father or his
mother. Having held so, this Court should not lose sight of
one important factor, namely, that although the deceased
boy had no income at the time of the accident and his
resultant death, he had the prospects of earning an
income in the future.
29. Further, it is important to note that, in
Hiteshbhai Nagjibhai ( supra ), the Hon’ble Apex Court
has not made any distinction on the basis of whether the
family members of the deceased were financially
dependent upon him. The principle laid down in the said
judgment is that, where a minor child dies or sustains
injuries in a road traffic accident, the compensation
payable is required to be assessed in accordance with
the principles laid down therein. Therefore, in the
considered opinion of this Court, when the Hon’ble Apex
Court has laid down a specific principle governing the
assessment of compensation in cases involving minor
children, this Court cannot mechanically prefer the
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11344
MFA No. 202413 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030089822026
principle stated in Sarla Verma (supra) over the principle
laid down in Hiteshbhai Nagjibhai Patel (supra) .
30. It is further relevant to note that the judgment
in Sarla Verma (supra) was delivered by a Bench of two
Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court. The judgment in
Hiteshbhai Nagjibhai Patel (supra) was also delivered
by a Bench of coordinate strength. Further, having regard
to the principle governing the applicability of precedents,
and subject to the facts and legal issues involved in the
respective judgments, the later judgment of a coordinate
Bench is required to be considered while determining the
applicable legal position.
31. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the
considered opinion that, notwithstanding whether the
petitioner-father was financially dependent upon the
income of the deceased boy, the petitioner, being the legal
representative of the deceased, is entitled to seek
compensation in accordance with law.
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11344
MFA No. 202413 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030089822026
32. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company
Sri.Manjunath Mallayya Shetty has also submitted that, in
the claim petition, the petitioner has sought compensation
of Rs.13,00,000/- only. Therefore, it is contended that
neither the Tribunal nor this Court can award
compensation in excess of the amount claimed by the
petitioner.
33. This Court has given its anxious consideration
to the submission made by the learned counsel for the
Insurance Company. It is necessary to note that in
Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh , reported in (2003) 2
SCC 274 , a Three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court
had occasion to consider an identical question. The Hon’ble
Apex Court ultimately held that the Tribunal and the Court
concerned are required to determine just compensation
and that, having regard to the facts and circumstances of
a particular case, if the Court comes to the conclusion that
the victim of the accident is entitled to compensation
exceeding the amount claimed, the Court can award such
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11344
MFA No. 202413 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030089822026
compensation as it considers just and reasonable, in
accordance with law. Therefore, with great respect to the
learned counsel for the Insurance Company, this Court is
unable to accept the said submission.
34. In the preceding paragraphs of this judgment,
this Court has discussed the principles governing the
assessment of compensation payable to the petitioner.
35. If the compensation is worked out by taking the
aforesaid discussion as the basis and yardstick, the
calculation would be as follows:
36. The notional income of the deceased boy is
taken at Rs.15,500/- per month. 40% of the said amount
works out to Rs.6,200/-. By adding these two amounts,
the monthly income, inclusive of future prospects, works
out to Rs.21,700/-. Accordingly, the annual income of the
deceased boy works out to Rs.2,60,400/-.
37. In Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport
Corporation , upon consideration of the earlier
- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11344
MFA No. 202413 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030089822026
precedents, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that, where
the deceased was unmarried, 50% of the established
income is required to be deducted towards the personal
and living expenses of the deceased. Therefore, 50% of
the aforesaid annual income of Rs.2,60,400/- works out to
Rs.1,30,200/- per annum. The said amount is taken as the
annual contribution for the purpose of computing
compensation under the head of loss of dependency.
38. Further, having regard to the applicable
principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the
multiplier of 18 is applied. Therefore, upon multiplying the
annual contribution of Rs.1,30,200/- by the multiplier of
18, the total compensation under the head of loss of
dependency works out to Rs.23,43,600/-. Accordingly, the
petitioner-Venkatesh is entitled to compensation of
Rs.23,43,600/- under the head of loss of dependency.
39. Further, the petitioner is entitled to
compensation of Rs.48,000/- under the head of loss of
- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11344
MFA No. 202413 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030089822026
filial consortium. The petitioner is also entitled to
Rs.18,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.18,000/-
towards loss of estate.
40. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to total
compensation of Rs.24,27,600/-. The break-up of the
compensation is as follows:
Compensation
Sl.
Heads awarded by the
No
Tribunal
Compensation
awarded by this
Court
1. Loss of dependency Rs.4,50,000/- Rs.23,43,600/-
2. Love and affections/ Rs.50,000/- Rs.48,000/-
Loss of filial consortium
3. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs.18,000/-
4. Loss of estate -- Rs.18,000/-
Total Rs.5,15,000/- Rs.24,27,600/-
Difference amount Rs.19,12,600/-
41. With these observations, this Court proceeds to
pass the following:
ORDER
i) This appeal is allowed in part .
- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11344
MFA No. 202413 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030089822026
ii) The impugned judgment and award dated
23.06.2026 passed by the Tribunal in MVC
No.1211/2023 is modified.
iii) The appellant/claimant is entitled for total
compensation of Rs.24,27,600/- as
against Rs.5,15,000/- awarded by the
Tribunal, along with interest at the rate of
6% per annum from the date of claim
petition till its realization.
iv) Respondent No.2 - Insurance Company is
directed to deposit the compensation
amount before the Tribunal within a
period six weeks from the date of receipt
of certified copy of this judgment.
v) Draw modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
(BRUNGESH M)
JUDGE
BL
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23
CT: AK