For a deceased child, compensation may be assessed using skilled-worker minimum wages, future prospects, and the age-based multiplier.

The appeals arose from the same motor-vehicle accident dated 07.07.1999, caused by the rash and negligent driving of Truck No. PB-11-B-5746 by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.3.

Varun Sharma, aged 17 years, died in the accident; his mother Vijay Kumari was awarded ₹1,72,800 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kapurthala.

Surabh Sharma, aged 21 years, also died; his mother, grandmother and grandfather were awarded ₹2,01,600.

The Tribunal applied a monthly income of ₹1,600 in Varun’s case and ₹2,100 in Surabh’s case, deducted one-third towards personal expenses, and applied a multiplier of 12.

The claimants filed appeals seeking enhancement, particularly on account of income, future prospects, multiplier and conventional heads of compensation.

The finding of rash and negligent driving was not challenged by the respondents and was affirmed by the High Court.

The Court applied Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, governing claims for compensation arising from motor accidents.

It relied on the principle of “just compensation” explained in Syed Basheer Ahamed v. Mohd. Jameel, under which compensation must be reasonable, evidence-based and neither arbitrary nor a windfall.

For computation of dependency compensation, the Court applied Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation regarding deduction for personal expenses and selection of the multiplier.

It applied National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi for addition of future prospects and compensation under conventional heads.

It further relied on Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur for consortium payable to eligible family members.

For assessment of unproved or informal-sector income, the Court relied on Chandra alias Chander alias Chanda Ram v. Mukesh Kumar Yadav, holding that absence of documentary proof does not justify rejecting oral evidence and that income may be assessed on a reasonable preponderance of probabilities.

Relying on Karuna Parmar v. Prakash Sinha and Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon, it treated the minimum wages of a skilled worker as a relevant basis for assessing the prospective income of a child approaching majority.

For Varun Sharma, the Court considered his age of 17 years, educational status and the principle that a child nearing majority could reasonably be assessed with reference to the income of a skilled worker.

It fixed his monthly income at ₹2,500, added 40% towards future prospects, and arrived at ₹3,500 per month.

Since he was a bachelor and left only his mother as a dependent, 50% was deducted towards personal expenses.

Applying multiplier 18, the loss of dependency was calculated at ₹3,78,000.

The Court additionally awarded ₹30,000 for loss of consortium, ₹10,000 for funeral expenses and ₹10,000 for loss of estate, making the total ₹4,28,000.

For Surabh Sharma, aged 21 years and stated to have worked as an accountant, the Court enhanced the monthly income from ₹2,100 to ₹2,700 despite the absence of documentary proof, relying on the unrebutted description of his occupation and the requirement of just compensation.

After adding 40% future prospects, the monthly income became ₹3,780.

As he was a bachelor, 50% was deducted for personal expenses; multiplier 18 produced a loss of dependency of ₹4,08,240.

The Court awarded ₹50,000 under conventional heads to his mother and ₹30,000 consortium each to his grandmother and grandfather, resulting in total compensation of ₹5,18,240.

The respondents’ joint and several liability remained undisturbed because the Tribunal’s finding on liability was not challenged.

In FAO No. 2182 of 2002, Vijay Kumari was held entitled to enhanced compensation of ₹2,55,000, over and above the Tribunal’s award, with interest at 9% per annum from 23.08.1999 until realization, payable by respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and severally.

In FAO No. 2183 of 2002, the claimants were awarded enhanced compensation of ₹3,17,000, over and above the Tribunal’s award, with interest at 9% per annum from 23.08.1999 until realization, payable jointly and severally by respondents No.1 to 3.

From the enhanced amount, ₹50,000 each with proportionate interest was directed to be paid to the grandmother and grandfather, and the balance to the mother.

The Insurance Company was directed to comply with the applicable Supreme Court directions concerning transmission and compliance of the judgment.