Fatal accident compensation for a minor must be assessed using prevailing minimum wages and future prospects.

On 23 May 2012, seven-year-old Chirag Vasantbhai Vasava was travelling in a Maruti Van when a truck allegedly driven rashly and negligently collided with the van near Village Ranikund, causing his death.

His legal representatives filed a motor accident claim petition. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 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 solely on quantum, contending that the compensation was inadequate.

The Tribunal had treated the accident as involving composite negligence and apportioned liability between the truck and Maruti Van drivers in the ratio of 70:30.

1. Whether the compensation awarded for the death of the seven-year-old deceased was required to be reassessed on the basis of minimum wages, future prospects, deduction for personal expenses and the appropriate multiplier?

2. Whether separate amounts were payable under the heads of loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium?

3. Whether interest was payable on the enhanced compensation for the period of 2,074 days’ delay in filing the appeal?

4. Whether the insurer of the truck could be directed to pay the entire compensation initially, with liberty to recover 30% from the owner of the Maruti Van?

The Court applied the principle in Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Anr., 2025 ACJ 1986, that, in assessing compensation for the death of a minor, income may be determined on the basis of the minimum wages prevalent at the time of the accident.

It applied the principle of adding 40% towards future prospects and deducting one-half towards personal expenses, followed by application of the multiplier applicable to the deceased’s age.

Under National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, standardized amounts are awardable for loss of estate and funeral expenses.

Under Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130, compensation for loss of consortium is payable to eligible surviving family members, with the Court holding that only the mother was entitled in the present case.

In cases of composite negligence, the claimant may recover the entire award from one liable tortfeasor, leaving that party to pursue contribution or recovery from the other tortfeasor; this principle was applied to the 70:30 apportionment.

Because the deceased was seven years old and had no actual income, the Court assessed his notional monthly income using the Gujarat minimum wage for a skilled worker applicable in 2012, namely ₹4,980, rounded to ₹5,000.

It added 40% for future prospects, producing ₹7,000 per month, deducted 50% for personal expenses, and arrived at a multiplicand of ₹3,500 per month. Applying a multiplier of 15, the loss of dependency was calculated at ₹6,30,000.

The Court further awarded ₹18,150 each for loss of estate and funeral expenses and ₹48,400 for loss of consortium to the mother, resulting in total compensation of ₹7,14,700.

After deducting the Tribunal’s award of ₹4,00,000, the additional compensation was ₹3,14,700.

However, since the appeal had been filed after a delay of 2,074 days, no interest was allowed on the additional compensation for that delayed period.

Given the composite negligence finding, the truck insurer was directed to satisfy the entire award initially, with liberty to recover 30% from the owner of the Maruti Van.

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

Interest at 9% per annum was maintained from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization, but interest was excluded for the 2,074-day delay in filing the appeal.

The truck’s insurer was directed to deposit and pay the entire awarded amount within six weeks, subject to 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.