THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:07/07/2018, PASSED IN MVC NO.1732/2015, ON THE FILE OF THE XXII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, 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 MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the parents seeking for higher compensation challenging the judgment and award dated 07.07.2018 passed in MVC.No.1732/2015 by the XXII Additional Small Causes Judge & Member, MACT, Bengaluru, (for short 'the Tribunal').

Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.

Sri.N.R.Naik, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased minor at Rs.15,000/- per annum. He therefore seeks to reassess the income of the deceased minor on the basis of minimum wages and the award of compensation under the heads of loss of dependency, consortium and other miscellaneous expenses and seeks to allow the appeal.

Per contra, Sri.B.S.Krishna, learned counsel for respondent No.2 supports the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and seeks to dismiss the appeal.

I have heard the arguments on both the sides and meticulously perused the material available on record.

The parties to the proceedings do not dispute that in a road accident on 29.05.2014, the son of the appellants sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was aged about 8 years at the time of the accident. The Tribunal, considered the evidence on record and awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,75,000/- along with the interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari and Another, 2025 INSC 1070 held as under:

"9. 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, (2020) 4 SCC 413, and Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Anr, 2024 SCC Online SC 3692

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."

Keeping in mind the enunciation of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case referred supra, I am of the considered view that the minimum wage of the minor must be notionally assessed and the appropriate multiplier