An appellate court may enhance just compensation for a deceased minor under Order XLI Rule 33.

On 5 February 2019, a NWKRTC bus collided with a motorcycle ridden by Kariyappa.

His 14-year-old son, Nagaraj, who was riding pillion, died at the scene; Kariyappa sustained injuries.

The parents claimed compensation for Nagaraj’s death in MVC No. 291/2019, and Kariyappa claimed compensation for his injuries in MVC No. 292/2019.

The Tribunal held the Corporation liable and awarded Rs. 11,30,000 for the death claim and Rs. 2,54,339 for the injury claim.

The Corporation appealed, challenging negligence and the amounts awarded.

1. Whether the Corporation proved that the motorcycle rider contributed to the accident.

2. Whether the compensation awarded in MVC No. 291/2019 for Nagaraj’s death was excessive.

3. Whether the compensation awarded in MVC No. 292/2019 for Kariyappa’s injuries was excessive.

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

A party alleging contributory negligence must support that allegation with evidence; negligence cannot be attributed without cogent material.

In assessing compensation for a child’s death, the Court applied a notional monthly income, deducted 50% for personal expenses, applied the multiplier appropriate to the deceased’s age, and added 40% for future prospects.

It relied on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, for future prospects and 10% escalation of conventional heads.

The Court also invoked Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure to award just compensation notwithstanding the absence of a claimant’s cross-appeal.

The Corporation produced no cogent evidence that the motorcycle rider’s conduct contributed to the collision; the bus conductor’s evidence did not establish contributory negligence, and no complaint had been filed against the rider.

The Court therefore declined to apportion liability.

For Nagaraj’s death, it assessed monthly income at Rs. 15,000, deducted 50% for personal expenses, added 40% for future prospects, and applied a multiplier of 15, producing dependency compensation of Rs. 18,90,000.

It also revised consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate, applying the Pranay Sethi escalation.

For Kariyappa’s injury claim, the Court found that the disability certificate was not supported by an assessment following the applicable guidelines and that difficulty sitting cross-legged did not establish functional disability.

It therefore removed the Tribunal’s Rs. 1,61,280 award for future income loss due to permanent disability, leaving the other heads unchanged.

Exercising its power under Order XLI Rule 33 CPC, it increased the award in MVC No. 291/2019 from Rs. 11,30,000 to Rs. 20,11,000.

It allowed the challenge to the disability-related award in MVC No. 292/2019 and reduced that compensation from Rs. 2,54,339 to Rs. 93,059.

Both appeals were allowed in part; the awards carry interest at 6% per annum, and the Corporation was directed to deposit the enhanced amounts with accrued interest within eight weeks.