For injured minors, compensation must use skilled-worker minimum wages, multiplier 18, and applicable future prospects.

The appellant, an eight-year-old boy, was struck by an insured car while playing outside his home on 1 November 2016.

He sustained fractures to the right tibia and fibula and claimed permanent disability.

The Tribunal found the driver negligent and awarded ₹2,25,000 in compensation.

The claimant appealed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement.

The High Court noted that the appeal concerned only the quantum of compensation; liability for the accident and the claimant’s entitlement to compensation were not in dispute.

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, provides for a claim for compensation arising from a motor accident, and Section 173(1) provides for an appeal against the Tribunal’s award.

In Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari, 2025 INSC 1070, the Supreme Court held that, for a non-earning claimant, monthly income should be assessed by reference to the applicable State minimum-wage notification for a skilled worker and that multiplier 18 applies.

The Court applied the future-prospects principles in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, AIR 2017 SC 5157, together with Erudhaya Priya v. State Express Transport Corporation Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine SC 601, to add future prospects to the income assessment for a personal-injury claimant.

Under New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Dolly Satish Gandhi, 2026 INSC 498, medical expenses reimbursed under a mediclaim policy are not to be deducted when assessing compensation.

Applying Hitesh, the Court treated Devanahalli as a Zone-III area and used the notified skilled-worker minimum wage of ₹385 per day, or ₹10,010 for 26 working days, as the minor’s monthly income.

It added 40% for future prospects and, applying multiplier 18, assessed future loss of income at 10% disability, reducing the doctor’s 15% whole-body assessment because the fractures had united, there was no shortening or malunion, and the claimant had recovered quickly.

The Court further reassessed compensation to include ₹40,000 for pain and suffering, ₹30,000 for parental income loss during the three-month laid-up period, ₹10,000 for diet, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges, and ₹30,000 for loss of amenities.

It retained ₹20,000 for future medical expenses and, applying Dolly Satish Gandhi, awarded ₹1,01,013 for medical expenses without deducting the mediclaim amount.

It modified the Tribunal’s award and reassessed compensation at ₹5,33,715, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition until deposit, excluding the 359-day delay in filing the appeal.

The insurer was directed to deposit the amount within six weeks.

On deposit, 50% of the enhanced compensation with interest was ordered to be released to the claimant, with liberty to seek release of the balance for higher studies or marriage.