Deceased minor’s compensation must be assessed using minimum wages with future prospects.

On 23 May 2012, Vaishaliben @ Sonalkumari Vasantbhai Vasava, aged approximately four years, was travelling in a Maruti Van bearing registration no. GJ-15-DD-9973 towards Village Shitalda. Near Village Ranikund, a truck bearing registration no. GJ-06-VV-8957 allegedly being driven rashly and negligently from the opposite direction collided with the van, causing fatal injuries to the deceased.

The deceased’s legal representatives filed a motor accident claim petition. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Vadodara, partly allowed the claim and awarded ₹4,00,000 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing until realization.

The claimants challenged the award before the High Court solely on the ground that the compensation was inadequate.

The appeal involved a delay of 2,074 days, for which interest was excluded.

Whether the compensation awarded for the death of the four-year-old minor was inadequate and required reassessment on the basis of minimum wages, future prospects, deduction for personal expenses, and the appropriate multiplier

Whether the claimants were entitled to separate compensation under the heads of loss of estate, funeral expenses, and loss of consortium

Whether, in view of composite negligence, the truck insurer could be directed to pay the entire compensation initially, with liberty to recover the van’s share from its owner

The Court applied the principle in Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari, reported in 2025 ACJ 1986, that where a deceased minor has no actual income, income may be assessed with reference to the minimum wages prevalent at the time of the accident.

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

It further relied on Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram, reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, for awarding loss of consortium to the eligible family member.

The Court also applied the principle governing composite negligence that the claimant may recover the entire compensation from one liable tortfeasor, leaving that tortfeasor to pursue contribution or recovery from the other negligent party.

Since the deceased was four years old and had no actual earnings, the Court assessed her monthly income by reference to the minimum wage for a skilled worker in Gujarat in 2012, namely ₹4,980, rounded to ₹5,000.

It added 40% towards future prospects, producing a monthly figure of ₹7,000, deducted 50% for personal expenses, and applied a multiplier of 15, resulting in a future loss of dependency of ₹6,30,000.

The Court found that the Tribunal had failed to award separate amounts for loss of estate and funeral expenses and accordingly granted ₹18,150 under each head.

As the deceased was survived by her mother and brother, only the mother was held entitled to loss of consortium, assessed at ₹48,400.

The total compensation was therefore recalculated at ₹7,14,700, against the Tribunal’s award of ₹4,00,000.

In light of the established 70:30 apportionment of composite negligence, the truck insurer was directed to satisfy the entire award initially, subject to recovery of 30% from the owner of the Maruti Van.

The total compensation was enhanced from ₹4,00,000 to ₹7,14,700, granting an additional compensation of ₹3,14,700.

The enhanced amount was to carry interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization, but no interest was payable on the additional compensation for the 2,074-day delay in filing the appeal.

The insurer of the truck was directed to deposit and pay the entire awarded amount within six weeks, with liberty to recover 30% from the owner of the Maruti Van.

The Tribunal was directed to disburse the amount after verification and adjustment of any deficit court fee.