Karnataka High CourtTransport, Maritime, and Aviation LawCivil Law

Karnataka HC Raises Compensation For Parents Of 2½-Year-Old Killed In KSRTC Bus Crash To ₹16.22 Lakh, Using ₹12,000 Monthly Skilled-Worker Minimum Wage

SRI PRATHAP KUMAR Kv.THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER

Karnataka HC Raises Compensation For Parents Of 2½-Year-Old Killed In KSRTC Bus Crash To ₹16.22 Lakh, Using ₹12,000 Monthly Skilled-Worker Minimum Wage. SRI PRATHAP KUMAR K vs THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER. Karnataka High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

Whether compensation for the death of a minor should be calculated by assessing income, adding future prospects, deducting personal expenses, and applying a multiplier.

The court held

The Court partly allowed the appeal and enhanced the total compensation from ₹2,15,000 to ₹16,22,000.

It also directed

It awarded the claimants an additional ₹14,07,000 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition until realization, payable by KSRTC.

KSRTC was directed to deposit the enhanced amount within six weeks; each claimant was allocated 50% of the enhanced compensation, with half of each claimant’s share to be placed in a three-year fixed deposit and the remainder released.

01Facts

The claimants, the parents of 2½-year-old Vinutha, sought compensation for her death in a road accident on 12 March 2019 involving a KSRTC bus.

pp. 2–4

The Tribunal partly allowed their claim, awarding ₹2,15,000, including ₹1,50,000 for loss of dependency, and directed payment with 6% annual interest.

pp. 2–4

The parents appealed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement.

pp. 2–4

02Issues

i.Whether compensation for the death of a minor should be calculated by assessing income, adding future prospects, deducting personal expenses, and applying a multiplier.

pp. 4–6

ii.Whether the claimants were entitled to enhanced compensation under conventional heads.

p. 6

03Law Applied

The appeal was brought under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

p. 2

In assessing compensation for a minor’s death, the Court relied on Divya v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan for applying a multiplier of 15 to a deceased below 15 years of age.

p. 5

It considered the competing submissions based on Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari and Thangavel v. Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. regarding income assessment, and assessed income by reference to the minimum wages applicable in the relevant zone.

pp. 4–5

The Court applied a 40% addition for future prospects, a 50% deduction for personal expenses, and awarded consortium, funeral expenses, and loss of estate.

pp. 5–6

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173

04Reasoning

The Court noted that Vinutha was 2½ years old and that the accident occurred in 2019.

pp. 4–6

It assessed her monthly income at ₹12,000, referring to the minimum wages for skilled workers in Zone 4, and added 40% for future prospects.

pp. 4–6

After deducting 50% for personal expenses and applying a multiplier of 15, it calculated loss of dependency at ₹15,12,000.

pp. 4–6

It also awarded ₹40,000 consortium to each parent and ₹15,000 each for funeral expenses and loss of estate.

p. 6

05Holding

The Court partly allowed the appeal and enhanced the total compensation from ₹2,15,000 to ₹16,22,000.

pp. 6–8

It awarded the claimants an additional ₹14,07,000 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition until realization, payable by KSRTC.

pp. 6–8

KSRTC was directed to deposit the enhanced amount within six weeks; each claimant was allocated 50% of the enhanced compensation, with half of each claimant’s share to be placed in a three-year fixed deposit and the remainder released.

pp. 6–8
Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF

SRI PRATHAP KUMAR KvsTHE DIVISIONAL MANAGER

Karnataka High Court · November 02, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment