A child’s future income loss may be assessed using notional income, multiplier, and disability.

The minor claimant was eight years old when he sustained serious head injuries in a road traffic accident on 30 December 2023. He was hospitalized for six days, and a doctor assessed 20% neurocognitive disability to the whole body.

The MACT awarded ₹6,10,732, including compensation for pain and suffering, medical expenses, and the parents’ loss of earnings during hospitalization.

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

1. Whether the claimant was entitled to enhanced compensation for permanent disability and loss of future income, assessed by applying a notional income, multiplier, and disability percentage.

2. Whether the compensation under the other heads should be reassessed in light of the claimant’s injuries and hospitalization.

Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for an appeal against a motor accident claims award.

The Court referred to Master Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2014) 14 SCC 396, which the Tribunal had relied on in assessing compensation for the injured child.

It also recorded the claimant’s reliance on Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari, 2025 INSC 1070, concerning calculation of future income loss by applying income, multiplier, and disability.

For the calculation, the Court used the 2023 notional income of ₹16,250 per month and applied multiplier 15 for an eight-year-old claimant.

The Court accepted the doctor’s evidence and assessed whole-body disability at 20%. Applying monthly income of ₹16,250, multiplier 15, and 20% disability, it calculated loss of future income at ₹5,85,000.

It separately assessed pain and suffering at ₹1,00,000, loss of amenities at ₹80,000, medical expenses at ₹2,10,732, the parent’s loss of income during a two-month laid-up period at ₹32,500, and attendant, conveyance, food, and nourishment expenses at ₹6,000.

These heads produced total compensation of ₹10,14,232, compared with the Tribunal’s award of ₹6,10,732.

Respondent No. 1, the insurer, was directed to deposit the enhanced amount with interest before the Tribunal within six weeks.

The entire enhanced compensation was ordered to be kept in fixed deposit in a nationalized or scheduled bank in the claimant’s name until he attains majority.