LT. COL. RAJINDER SINGH SHEKHAWAT & Ors. v. SRI.

THE MANAGER SRIRAM GENERAL INS. CO. LTD., E-8, EPIP, RHCO INDUSTRIAL AREA SITAURA, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN - 302 022, INDIA, NOW REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER SHRIRAM GENERAL INS. CO. LTD., NO. 3/5, III FLOOR, S V ARCADE BILAKALLI MAIN ROAD, OFF B.G. ROAD IIM POST, BENGALURU - 560 076 ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. VIJAYA PHANEENDRA T.B, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. A.N. KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE) AND:

#1. LT. COL RAJINDER SINGH SHEKHAWAT S/O SHYAM SINGH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

#2. SMT. VANITHA SHEKHAWAT W/O LT. COL. RAJINDER SINGH SHEKHAWAT AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF G-55, V.I.S.L.-S.A.I.L V.I.S.I., OFFICER COLONY BHADRAVATHI - 577 301.

#3. GIRISH G V S/O VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS DRIVER OF KA-49-1529 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:42261 MFA No. 4242 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 3740 of 2021 HC-KAR S.R.M.S BUS R/O NO. 07, BRINDAVAN SHREYAS RESIDENCY KADABAGERE MAIN ROAD, JANAPRIYA TOWNSHIP, BEHIND MAGADI MAIN ROAD BANGALORE - 562 130.

#4. SMT. MANJULA W/O NAGARAJ A.C AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS OWNER OF S R M S BUS BEARING REG NO. KA-49-1529 R/O NO.12/7, AJEEMA BUILDING A.V. ROAD, OPP. KALASIPALYA BUS STAND BANGALORE - 560 002 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.V. MAHESWARAPPA.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 16.10.2025, NOTICE TO R3 AND R4 DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.20.03.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.474/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIMOGA, SITTING AT OF BHADRAVATHI, RS.16,75,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALISATION. COMPENSATION AWARDING THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:42261 MFA No. 4242 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 3740 of 2021 HC-KAR ORAL JUDGMENT Both these appeals arising out of judgment and award dated 20.03.2021 passed in MVC No.474/2019.

#2. The claimants has filed MFA No.4242/2022 being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 20th March 2021, passed in MVC No.474/2019 by the IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Shimoga, sitting at Bhadravathi and Addl. MACT.(IV) (for short `Tribunal') and MFA No.3740/2021 is filed by the insurer against the very same judgment and award. With the consent of both the sides, both appeals are taken up together for final disposal.

#3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

#4. The brief facts of the case are that, on

10.11.2018, at about 7.00 a.m., the deceased-Diya Shekavath, daughter of claimants aged about 15 years - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:42261 MFA No. 4242 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 3740 of 2021 HC-KAR met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing registration No.KA.49.1529, near Southikere of N.R.Pura Taluk. Deceased was a passenger of the said bus. She sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. She was studying in the 10th Standard at Poornaprajna Education Centre, Bhadravathi. She was said to be a bright student and actively participated in sports activities. The claimants had only one daughter, who lost her life in the accident. With these reasons, claimants sought for compensation of Rs.78,00,000/-.

#5. Respondent No.1 was the driver, respondent No.2 was the owner and respondent No.3 was the insurer of the offending bus.

#6. Before the Tribunal, respondents No.1 and 2 remained ex-parte and respondent No.3 filed written statement denying the averments stated in the claim petition and denied its liability to pay the compensation and prayed to dismiss the petition. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:42261 MFA No. 4242 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 3740 of 2021 HC-KAR

#7. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. The Tribunal recorded evidence and after hearing arguments of both the parties, the Tribunal by impugned judgment, awarded following amount of compensation:

#2. Towards loss of dependency : Rs.16,20,000/- Towards body and funeral expenses transportation of dead : Rs. 15,000/-

#3. Towards loss of love and affection : Rs. 40,000/- Total : Rs.16,75,000/-

#8. The Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the offending bus. The Tribunal took the notional income of the deceased as ₹15,000/-, added 50% of the income towards future prospects, applied the multiplier of ‘18’, and calculated the amount of compensation under the head “loss of dependency.” - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:42261 MFA No. 4242 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 3740 of 2021 HC-KAR

#9. Being dissatisfied with the award passed by the Tribunal, the claimant preferred MFA No. 4242/2022 seeking enhancement of compensation, while respondent No. 3 - the insurer preferred MFA No. 3740/2021 on the ground that an exorbitant amount had been awarded by the Tribunal.

#10. I have heard the arguments of learned advocates for both the parties.

#11. The fact of the accident and the resultant death of the claimants’ daughter, aged about 15 years and studying in SSLC, is not in dispute. Hence, no need to reconsider the same.

#12. The learned counsel claimants vehemently contended that the Tribunal, while taking the notional income of ₹15,000/-, not included the amount towards future prospects. It has not followed the law laid down in the case of Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and Others reported in (2020) 4 SCC 413 and recent judgment of - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:42261 MFA No. 4242 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 3740 of 2021 HC-KAR the Apex Court in the case of Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Anr., decided on 8th August, 2025 in Civil Appeal No.10278/2025 (SLP(C)No.14444/2025) and not taken notional income of deceased as per Minimum Wages Act.

#13. Learned counsel has also submitted Division Bench judgment of this Court in MFA No.7174/2019 (MV-D) decided on 27th June, 2023 in the case of Parameshwarappa N.H. and anr., v. Halesh and anr., where the Court had taken income of a deceased minor as Rs.15,000/- per month. Division Bench judgment of this Court in MFA No.102268/2019(MV) dated 13th November 2020 in the case of Chetana and others v. Babuji.M. and others, the deceased was a minor aged about 17 years, his notional income was taken as Rs.10,250/- per month, and 40% of the income was added towards future prospects. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:42261 MFA No. 4242 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 3740 of 2021 HC-KAR In (2014) 11 SCC 178 in the case of V.Mekala v. M.Malathi & another where the injured was a minor aged about 16 years, his notional income was taken as Rs.18,000/- per month, and future prospects were added while awarding compensation. It is further submitted that, in the latest judgment of Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel (referred to supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has unequivocally held that the income of a minor shall not be considered as that of a non-earning member, but must be assessed on the basis of the Minimum Wages Act. It has also been held that, in the event the claimants are unable to produce the relevant minimum wages notification, it is the duty of the insurer to furnish the same before the Tribunal or Court for proper determination of compensation. Hence, in view of the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions, a just and reasonable amount of compensation is required to be awarded in the present case.

#14. Learned counsel for the respondent-insurer vehemently opposes the said submissions and contends - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:42261 MFA No. 4242 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 3740 of 2021 HC-KAR that since the minor had no income, the income must be assessed on the basis of notional income, as held in Kurvan Ansari v. Shyam Kishore Murmu reported in (2022) 1 SCC 317, wherein total compensation awarded was Rs.4,70,000/- for death of a minor aged about 7 years. The Learned counsel also relied on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Singh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in (2020) 7 SCC 256 wherein compensation awarded was Rs.2,95,000/-, due to the death of minor aged about 12 years. In the case of Kishan Gopal v. Lala and others reported in (2014) 1 SCC 244 wherein case of death of a minor aged about 10 years, total compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- was awarded. He further contends that in the case of RK Malik and another v. Kiran Pal and others reported in - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:42261 MFA No. 4242 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 3740 of 2021 HC-KAR (2009) 14 SCC 1, the Apex Court awarded compensation of Rs.2,95,000/- in a case of death of 10 years old minor. Learned counsel for the insurer further stated that in all the aforesaid judgments, the Hon’ble Apex Court has consistently taken the notional income of minor between Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 30,000/- per annum, as mentioned in Schedule II of the Motor Vehicles Act, while calculating compensation. The present case is not an exceptional one warranting a different view. He further contends that the law laid down in Kajal as well as in Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Both decisions pertain to injury cases, and in Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel, the victim was suffering from a permanent disability to the extent of 90% of the whole body. Considering these facts and the sufferings of the boy aged about 16 years, the compensation was awarded therein. For these reasons, he prays that the compensation in the present case be recalculated in accordance with the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:42261 MFA No. 4242 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 3740 of 2021 HC-KAR As already stated above, in the present case, a girl aged about 16 years met with an accident and succumbed to the injuries sustained therein. She was studying in the 10th Standard at the time of the accident. While traveling in the school bus, due to the negligence of the driver, the bus hit an electric pole, causing her to sustain fatal injuries.

#15. In Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel the Hon'ble Apex Court observed 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. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:42261 MFA No. 4242 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 3740 of 2021 HC-KAR

#16. We may also observe that, in general, i.e., accidents involving adults, we are often confronted with situations where the Minimum Wage Data is not readily available and every so often, the question that has been made up to this Court hinges only on the calculation of income. In that view of the matter and in the hope of reducing the claimants need to file appeals to this Court or even the High Court, we deem it appropriate to direct that in cases where the claimant has failed to fumish appropriate details of income or adequate proof thereof, it shall be the responsibility and obligation of the contesting party, more particularly the insurance company to furnish before the Tribunal the applicable minimum wage as duly issued by the concerned government.

#18. In so far as the direction issued regarding the furnishing of the schedule of minimum wages by the insurance company in cases where the income of the claimant/deceased properly established, let a copy of this order be sent by the Registrar Judicial of this Court to the learned Registrar Generals of the High Courts, who shall ensure that the a copy of this order is sent to all Motor Accident Claims Tribunals, to see that the direction is followed strictly." - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:42261 MFA No. 4242 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 3740 of 2021 HC-KAR The Apex Court, in the aforementioned judgment, held that the Tribunal is required to consider the law laid down therein while awarding compensation. The question addressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above said judgment does not pertain to cases of death or injury but relates to the assessment of income of a minor below the age of 18 years. Paragraph 15 of the said judgment, as referred to above, is clear in stating that it applies to both cases of death and injury. Therefore, the insurer’s contention that, in the case of the death of a minor below the age of 17 years, compensation must be determined in accordance with a case cited by the insurer, is not tenable in law. In view of the recent judgment of the Apex Court in Hitesh Nagjibai Patel, the income of the deceased must be calculated based on the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act.

#16. Learned counsel for the claimants produced the Karnataka Minimum Wages Notification, which is effective from April 1, 2018, to March 31, 2019. According to the - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:42261 MFA No. 4242 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 3740 of 2021 HC-KAR Notification, the income of a Skilled Worker in Zone-II shall be taken as Rs. 539.86 per day or Rs. 14,036.39 per month. Since the deceased was a resident of Bhadravathi, his income can be taken as per Zone-II in the said Notification. Accordingly, the income of the deceased is taken as Rs. 14,036/- per month, 40% of the same has to be added towards future prospects. Multiplier applicable between the age group of 15 to 18 as held in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others1 as well as Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another2 is '18'. In the normal circumstances, in case of death of a minor, as held in the above said judgments, 50% of the income is to be deducted for personal expenses. In the case of Kishan Gopal referred supra Hon'ble Apex Court held that in case of minor, there shall not be any deductions. In that case, the annual income was taken as Rs.30,000/-, on the basis of the schedule II; where as in 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 AIR 2009 SCC 3104 - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:42261 MFA No. 4242 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 3740 of 2021 HC-KAR the case of Hitesh referred supra, even though deceased was a minor, his income was taken on par with the major. Therefore, in the ends of justice, it is necessary to deduct 50% of the income towards personal expenses. On the basis of the above said figures, the amount of compensation under the head of loss of dependency shall be Rs.14,036/- + 40% x 12 x 18 x 50% = Rs.19,650 x 12 x 18x50% = Rs.21,22,243/-.

#17. Compensation has to be calculated under the conventional heads as held in the case of Pranay Sethi as well as Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram3. There are two claimants, who are the parents of the deceased, and each are entitled to compensation of Rs. 40,000/- loss of consortium. Additionally, Rs. 15,000/- each shall be awarded to them towards funeral expenses and loss of estate. 3 2018 ACJ 2782 - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:42261 MFA No. 4242 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 3740 of 2021 HC-KAR

#18. Thus, the claimants/appellants are entitled to following compensation:

#4. Loss of dependency : Rs.21,22,243/- Funeral expenses : Rs. 15,000/- Loss of Estate : Rs. 15,000/- Towards loss of Consortium : Rs. 80,000/- TOTAL Rs.22,52,243/- Amount awarded by Tribunal : Rs 16,75,000/- Enhancement : Rs.5,77,243/- Rounded of to : Rs.5,77,000/-

#19. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.5,57,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till its realization. Undisputedly, respondent No.3 is liable to pay the same.

#20. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:42261 MFA No. 4242 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 3740 of 2021 HC-KAR ORDER i) MFA No.4242/2022 is allowed in part. MFA No.3740/2021 is dismissed. ii) The judgment and award dated

20.03.2021, passed by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sitting at Bhadravathi, Additional MACT(IV), Shimogga, in MVC No.474/2019 is modified. iii) The claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.5,57,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. iv) The respondent No.3-Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within a period of six weeks from the date of award. v) Remaining portion of the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal is not disturbed. vi) Whatever the amount deposited by the appellant in MFA No.3740/2022 shall be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement. - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:42261 MFA No. 4242 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 3740 of 2021 HC-KAR vii) Send back the trial Court records along with a copy of this judgment. Draw award accordingly. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE PSJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9