Compensation for a deceased minor must reflect a just assessment of future loss and conventional heads.

On 26 August 2023, minor Yatriben was travelling on an Activa from Tared to Mahuva when a Bolero truck allegedly driven rashly and at excessive speed collided with it. Yatriben sustained fatal injuries.

Her claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking ₹10,00,000. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahuva, awarded ₹5,34,000 by judgment dated 19 November 2024. The claimants appealed under Section 173, contending that the compensation was inadequate

1. Whether the Tribunal’s award of ₹5,34,000 was inadequate and required enhancement to provide just compensation

2. If so, what amount of enhanced compensation and interest should be awarded to the claimants

The appeal was brought under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against an award on a claim under Section 166. The Court treated the Act as beneficial legislation and applied the principle that compensation must be just, fair, reasonable, and equitable.

In assessing compensation, the Tribunal must take a holistic and pragmatic view, make a realistic approximation of the loss, and endeavour to award just compensation even if it exceeds the amount claimed; the award should not be niggardly.

The Court reviewed the Tribunal’s award and concluded that it had erred in assessing compensation, warranting enhancement.

Applying its just-compensation approach, the Court recalculated the dependency award using monthly income of ₹12,324, a 40% addition for prospective income, a one-half deduction for the deceased’s personal expenses, and a multiplier of 18, arriving at future loss of ₹18,63,432. It also assessed funeral expenses at ₹18,150, loss of estate at ₹18,150, and loss of consortium at ₹96,800, for total compensation of ₹19,96,532.

The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the enhanced amount with interest before the Tribunal within eight weeks of receipt of the order. The Tribunal was directed to disburse the awarded amount, subject to verification, due procedure, and deduction of unpaid court fees; the Tribunal’s remaining directions were left unchanged.