A deceased minor’s earning capacity must be assessed using skilled-worker minimum wages.

The appellants, the deceased’s parents, sister and brother, claimed compensation following the death of K.C. Chethan, aged approximately 16, in a collision between his motorcycle and a tractor-trailer on 12 December 2017.

The Tribunal found the tractor-trailer driver negligent and awarded Rs.6,87,548, treating only the parents as dependants.

It assessed the deceased’s notional income at Rs.30,000 per annum and awarded interest at 6% per annum.

The claimants appealed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking enhancement, including on the grounds of income assessment, medical expenses, consortium and interest.

1. Whether the Tribunal’s award of compensation required interference, particularly in its assessment of the deceased’s income and loss of dependency.

2. Whether the compensation under the other heads, including consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses, required revision.

Under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, an aggrieved party may appeal a Claims Tribunal award.

In assessing compensation for the death of a minor, Karuna Parmar v. Prakash Sinha, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3324, was applied for using minimum wages for a skilled worker as the income basis, adding 40% for future prospects, deducting 50% for personal and living expenses, and applying multiplier 18; it also informed the conventional amounts awarded for consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses.

The Court also relied on Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3446, which stated that, in claims involving a child’s death or injury, loss of income should be calculated by reference to the minimum wages payable to a skilled worker in the State at the relevant time.

The Tribunal’s earlier reliance on Kishan Gopal v. Lala, (2014) 1 SCC 244, was not followed as the basis for retaining the lower notional income in light of the later decisions.

The deceased’s age was taken as 16, and the Court held that his minority did not justify treating his earning potential as nil or limiting it to the Tribunal’s notional figure.

Applying the skilled-worker minimum wage for 2017–18 of Rs.8,660.60 per month, the Court added 40% for future prospects, deducted 50% for personal expenses and applied multiplier 18, calculating loss of dependency at Rs.13,09,483.

It revised the conventional awards in line with Karuna Parmar, but left medical expenses of Rs.27,548 and transportation expenses of Rs.10,000 undisturbed because those amounts were supported by the record.

The Court did not alter the 6% interest rate or the Tribunal’s allocation of compensation between the parents.

The total compensation was enhanced from Rs.6,87,548 to Rs.14,80,131, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition until deposit.

Respondents 1 and 2 were held jointly and severally liable, with respondent 2, the owner, directed to pay within 30 days of receiving the certified order.

The parents were to share the compensation in the Tribunal’s 20:80 ratio; 50% of their respective shares was to be placed in fixed deposits for five years, with the balance released to them.