Compensation for a minor’s death must be assessed using prevailing skilled-worker minimum wages.

On 23 August 2017, Sahilkumar Devjibhai Bariya, aged approximately 14 years, was travelling in an S.T. bus bearing registration No. GJ-18-Y-2937. The bus driver allegedly drove rashly and negligently at excessive speed, lost control, and collided with an unidentified vehicle coming from the opposite direction. Sahilkumar sustained grievous injuries and subsequently died.

His parents and sisters filed a motor accident claim petition. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal partly allowed the claim and awarded ₹5,05,800 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing until realization.

The claimants appealed, challenging the award solely on the quantum of compensation.

Whether the deceased minor’s notional income ought to have been assessed on the basis of the minimum wages for a skilled worker instead of ₹3,000 per month?

Whether future prospects were required to be added to the deceased’s income and the appropriate deduction and multiplier applied for computing loss of dependency?

Whether the claimants were entitled to enhancement under the conventional heads of loss of estate, funeral expenses, and loss of consortium?

The Court relied on Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Anr., 2025 INSC 1070, for the principle that where a deceased minor has no actual income and there is no cogent evidence of earnings, income may be assessed with reference to the applicable minimum wages.

It applied the principle that 40% of income is to be added towards future prospects in the case of a young deceased.

For conventional compensation, the Court followed National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, awarding standardized amounts for loss of estate and funeral expenses.

It further applied Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors., (2018) 18 SCC 130, holding that the parents, but not the sisters, were entitled to compensation for loss of consortium.

Since the deceased was 14 years old and had no established actual income, the Tribunal’s assessment of ₹3,000 per month was considered inadequate. Applying Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel, the Court assessed monthly income at ₹8,388, being the applicable minimum wage for a skilled worker.

It added 40% towards future prospects, producing an income of ₹11,743 per month, deducted 50% towards personal expenses, and applied a multiplier of 15, resulting in loss of dependency of ₹10,56,960.

The Court additionally awarded ₹18,150 each for loss of estate and funeral expenses under Pranay Sethi, and ₹96,800 for loss of consortium to both parents under Nanu Ram.

The total compensation was therefore recalculated at ₹11,90,060, from which the Tribunal’s award of ₹5,05,800 was deducted.

The respondent–Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation was directed to deposit the additional compensation with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization, excluding the 1,347-day period of delay in filing the appeal.

The amount was directed to be deposited within six weeks and thereafter disbursed by the Tribunal after verification and deduction of any deficit court fee.

No order as to costs was made.