Fatal accident compensation for a minor child requires applying multiplier 15, not 18.

Seema, aged 15 years and studying in Class IX, died in a motor-vehicular accident on 08.11.1998 due to the rash and negligent driving of Truck No. PB-10-P-9852 by respondent No.1.

The truck was owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3. Her parents filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held the driver negligent and awarded ₹1,00,000 with interest at 12% per annum, holding respondents jointly and severally liable.

The parents appealed seeking enhancement of compensation.

The High Court noted that the finding on negligence had not been challenged and therefore required no interference.

Whether the compensation of ₹1,00,000 awarded by the Tribunal for the death of the minor deceased was inadequate and required enhancement under the principles governing “just compensation”

Whether the deceased’s notional income, future prospects, deduction for personal expenses, multiplier, and compensation under conventional heads had been correctly assessed

Whether the parents were entitled to compensation for loss of dependency and parental/filial consortium, and at what rate of interest

The Court applied Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, under which claimants are entitled to compensation that is “just,” while the assessment must remain reasoned and must not be arbitrary, punitive, or a source of unjust enrichment, as explained in Syed Basheer Ahamed v. Mohd. Jameel.

For assessing the income of a deceased minor, the Court relied on Karuna Parmar v. Prakash Sinha and Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon, holding that minimum wages payable to a skilled worker may be adopted as the basis of income.

Future prospects were added at 40% under National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi.

The deduction of 50% towards personal expenses for an unmarried deceased and the applicable multiplier principles were drawn from Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation.

The Court treated the father as financially dependent on the deceased child in accordance with Sadhana Tomar v. Ashok Kushwaha.

For a minor’s fatal accident claim, a multiplier of 15, rather than 18, was applied on the basis of Devendra Kumar Tripathi v. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., following Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan.

Compensation for consortium was awarded with reference to Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur.

The Court found that the Tribunal’s lump-sum award did not properly apply the settled method of computation.

Since the deceased was 15 years old and the accident occurred in 1998, the Court assessed her monthly income at ₹2,500, corresponding to the approximate minimum wages of a skilled worker at that time, and added 40% for future prospects, producing a monthly income of ₹3,500.

As the deceased was unmarried and left both parents as dependants, 50% was deducted for personal expenses, resulting in a monthly loss of dependency of ₹1,750 and an annual loss of ₹21,000.

Applying the multiplier of 15 appropriate to a minor’s fatal accident claim, the loss of dependency was calculated at ₹3,15,000.

The Court further awarded compensation under conventional heads, including consortium for both parents, and assessed the total compensation at ₹3,95,000.

The Court reduced the applicable interest rate to 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.

The total compensation was enhanced from ₹1,00,000 to ₹3,95,000, resulting in an enhancement of ₹2,95,000 over the Tribunal’s award.

The enhanced compensation was made payable by respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and severally, with interest at 9% per annum from 11.12.1998, the date of filing of the claim petition, until realization.

The compensation was directed to be shared equally by the two claimants.

The Registry was directed to email the authenticated judgment to the insurer, and any pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.