Deceased children’s compensation must reflect skilled-worker minimum wages and applicable future prospects.

On 21 November 2011, Sunny Ranchodbhai Hiragar, aged approximately five years, was walking home after purchasing chocolate when a car bearing registration No. RJ-24-CA-461 allegedly came at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, collided with him, and caused fatal injuries.

The deceased succumbed during treatment.

His parents filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal seeking compensation for his death.

The Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded Rs.1,65,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing until realization.

The parents preferred the present appeal, challenging the award solely on the ground of inadequacy of compensation.

Whether the income of a five-year-old deceased child should be assessed on the basis of the minimum wages applicable to a skilled worker, rather than at the notional amount of Rs.1,500/- per month adopted by the Tribunal?

Whether future prospects, personal-expense deductions, and the appropriate multiplier were required to be applied in computing the loss of dependency?

Whether the claimants, being the deceased’s parents, were entitled to compensation for loss of consortium and enhanced amounts under loss of estate and funeral expenses?

Whether interest on the enhanced compensation was payable for the period during which the appeal was delayed?

The Court relied on Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Anr., 2025 INSC 1070, holding that a child involved in a fatal motor accident cannot be treated as a “non-earning individual” and that the loss of income may be assessed with reference to the minimum wages payable to a skilled worker at the relevant time.

It applied National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, concerning addition of future prospects and standardized compensation under conventional heads such as loss of estate and funeral expenses.

The Court also relied on Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors., (2018) 18 SCC 130, recognizing the parents’ entitlement to compensation for loss of consortium upon the death of a child.

Applying these principles, the Court used a 50% deduction for personal expenses and multiplier 15 for the deceased child.

The Tribunal’s assessment of the deceased child’s monthly income at Rs.1,500/- was found inadequate.

Since the accident occurred in Gujarat in 2011, the Court adopted the notified minimum wages for a skilled worker, namely Rs.4,710/-, rounded to Rs.4,700/- per month, in accordance with Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel.

A 40% addition for future prospects increased the monthly income to Rs.6,580/-.

After deducting 50% towards personal expenses, the monthly contribution was assessed at Rs.3,290/-. Applying multiplier 15, the loss of future dependency amounted to Rs.5,92,200/-.

As the deceased was survived by both parents, the Court awarded Rs.96,800/- towards loss of consortium, calculated at Rs.48,400/- for each parent.

It further enhanced loss of estate and funeral expenses to Rs.18,150/- each in accordance with Pranay Sethi.

The total compensation was consequently recalculated at Rs.7,25,300/-, from which the Tribunal’s award of Rs.1,65,000/- was deducted.

Regarding interest, the Court maintained the rate of 9% per annum but excluded the 996-day period of delay in filing the appeal, as required by the earlier order condoning the delay.

The total compensation was enhanced to Rs.7,25,300/-, resulting in an additional award of Rs.5,60,300/- over and above the amount granted by the Tribunal.

The enhanced amount was directed to carry interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization, excluding the 996-day period of delay in filing the appeal.

The Insurance Company was directed to deposit and satisfy the award within six weeks of receiving the order, after which the Tribunal was to disburse the amount to the claimants subject to verification and deduction of any deficit court fee.

No order was made as to costs.