For a deceased minor, notional income is assessed using prevailing State minimum wages.

On 8 June 2017, a truck bearing registration no. GJ-06-AV-8768, allegedly driven rashly and negligently by Opponent No. 1, collided with the rear of a motorcycle on which the deceased, Bhautikkumar Bakulbhai Bariya, aged approximately six years, was travelling as a pillion rider. The deceased sustained serious injuries and subsequently died. The motorcycle belonged to Opponent No. 4.

The deceased’s parents instituted M.A.C.P. No. 84 of 2021 before the Special MACT, Chhotaudepur at Bodeli. The Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded Rs.4,79,500 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing until realization, by judgment and award dated 31 August 2023.

The claimants appealed against the award, principally challenging the assessment of compensation on the basis that the deceased minor’s notional income had been undervalued.

Whether the compensation payable for the death of a six-year-old minor was required to be reassessed by determining his notional income with reference to the minimum wages applicable to a skilled worker?

Whether 40% should be added towards future prospects, and whether the amounts awarded under loss of estate, funeral expenses, and loss of consortium required enhancement?

Whether interest on the enhanced compensation should be excluded for the 756-day delay in filing the appeal?

The Court relied on Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari, 2025 INSC 1070, for the principle that, where the deceased is a minor with no actual income, income may be assessed on the basis of the minimum wages notified by the relevant State Government prevailing at the time of the accident.

It applied the principle of adding 40% towards future prospects to the assessed income. For deduction towards personal expenses and selection of multiplier, the Court deducted one-half of the income and applied a multiplier of 15, having regard to the deceased’s age.

Relying on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, it enhanced the amounts under loss of estate and funeral expenses to Rs.18,150 each.

Under Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130, both parents were held entitled to compensation for loss of consortium.

The Court further held that, since the delay had been condoned without any direction excluding the delayed period from computation of interest, interest on the enhanced amount could not be denied for that period.

The Court found that the deceased, being six years old, had no actual earnings. Applying Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel, it rejected the Tribunal’s annual notional income of Rs.25,000 and adopted the minimum wage for a skilled worker prevailing in Gujarat on the date of the accident, namely Rs.8,388 per month.

After adding 40% for future prospects, the monthly income was calculated at Rs.11,743 and the annual income at Rs.1,40,916. Deducting one-half for personal expenses resulted in an annual loss of dependency of Rs.70,458; applying a multiplier of 15 produced Rs.10,56,870 under loss of dependency.

The Court further enhanced funeral expenses and loss of estate to Rs.18,150 each under Pranay Sethi and awarded Rs.48,400 to each parent for loss of consortium under Magma General Insurance. The total compensation was consequently recalculated at Rs.11,89,970.

After deducting the Tribunal’s award of Rs.4,79,500, the enhanced compensation amounted to Rs.7,10,470.

Regarding interest, the Court noted that the delay of 756 days in filing the appeal had already been condoned by order dated 21 November 2025 and that the condonation order did not exclude the delayed period from the accrual of interest. The Insurance Company’s objection was therefore rejected.

The total compensation was enhanced to Rs.11,89,970, including the enhanced amount of Rs.7,10,470, with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization.

The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the additional compensation with interest before the Tribunal within eight weeks of receiving the order.

The Tribunal was directed to disburse the entire compensation after deducting any deficit court fee and completing due verification.