A deceased minor’s notional income attracts 40% future prospects for dependency compensation.

On 24 October 2016, a motorcycle carrying two minors collided with an NWKRTC bus near Alur village.

The pillion rider, Shrishail, died from his injuries; the motorcycle rider sustained multiple fractures and permanent disability.

Their claims resulted in Tribunal awards of ₹4,90,000 for Shrishail’s death and ₹9,04,868 for the injured claimant, with interest at 6% per annum.

NWKRTC appealed, challenging the compensation awarded

1. Whether the compensation awarded in MVC No. 202/2017 for the injured claimant was excessive and required modification

2. Whether the compensation awarded in MVC No. 201/2017 for Shrishail’s death required reassessment

Under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, an aggrieved party may appeal a Tribunal’s award

Order XLI Rule 33 CPC empowers an appellate court to grant appropriate relief, including enhancement, even where the claimant has not appealed.

Under *Master Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd.*, (2014) 14 SCC 396, compensation of ₹6,00,000 is payable under the relevant head where a child suffers permanent disability of 90% or more.

Under *National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi*, (2017) 16 SCC 680, the conventional heads are subject to the applicable escalation; the Court applied a 10% increase to consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate.

For the injured claimant, the Court upheld ₹6,00,000 for disability and the medical-expense and nourishment awards, but removed the separate ₹2,00,000 award for pain and suffering, reasoning that it duplicated compensation under *Master Mallikarjun*.

It increased conveyance expenses from ₹10,000 to ₹20,000 and laid-up-period compensation from ₹40,000 to ₹60,000, and awarded ₹30,000 for future medical expenses, resulting in total compensation of ₹7,64,868.

For Shrishail’s death, the Court used annual income of ₹30,000, added 40% for future prospects and applied multiplier 15, fixing loss of dependency at ₹6,30,000.

It reassessed the conventional heads in accordance with *Pranay Sethi*, bringing total compensation to ₹7,51,000; it used Order XLI Rule 33 CPC to grant that enhancement despite no claimant appeal.

It reassessed Shrishail’s death compensation upward from ₹4,90,000 to ₹7,51,000, with 6% annual interest from the petition date until deposit

The operative order describes MFA No. 100376 as “dismissed” while granting the claimants enhanced compensation; the substance of the order is the stated enhancement