01Facts
The appellants, parents of a five-month-old child who died in a road accident on 20 March 2019, sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
pp. 1–3The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 5,00,000, assessing the child’s annual income at Rs. 30,000.
pp. 1–3The parents appealed under Section 173, contending that income should be assessed by reference to minimum wages and that future prospects should be added
pp. 1–302Issues
i.1. Whether the Tribunal erred in assessing the deceased child’s income at Rs. 30,000 per annum instead of applying the relevant minimum wage
pp. 3–5, 7ii.2. Whether the compensation should be enhanced by adding future prospects and reassessing the applicable heads of compensation
pp. 3–5, 8–1003Law Applied
Sections 166 and 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provide, respectively, for a claim for compensation and an appeal against a Tribunal’s award.
pp. 4–5Relying on Kajal v. Jagdish Chand (2020) 4 SCC 413, Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmed Simon 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3692, and Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari 2025 INSC 1070, the Court stated that, in a child’s injury or death claim, income should be assessed on the basis of the minimum wages payable to a skilled worker in the State at the relevant time
pp. 4–5It relied on Sarla Verma (Smt.) v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi 2017 ACJ 2700 for future prospects, multiplier and conventional heads.
p. 5It also relied on Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh (2003) 2 SCC 274 for the principle that a court may award compensation exceeding the amount claimed where the evidence justifies it
pp. 7–8Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173Section 166
04Reasoning
The Court held that, because the accident occurred in 2019, the child’s monthly income should be assessed at Rs. 8,560, the applicable minimum wage for a skilled worker.
pp. 5–6It added 40% for future prospects, applied a multiplier of 18 and deducted 50% for personal and living expenses, calculating loss of dependency at Rs. 12,94,272
pp. 5–6It reassessed the conventional heads at Rs. 1,33,100, comprising loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium, and noted that the Tribunal had already awarded Rs. 50,000 under the conventional heads.
p. 6The Court also invoked Nagappa to address compensation exceeding the original claim
pp. 7–805Holding
The appeal was partly allowed, and the Tribunal’s award was modified.
pp. 7–8The Court directed the respondents to deposit an additional Rs. 9,22,372, with interest as awarded by the Tribunal, within four weeks; the remaining award was left undisturbed
pp. 7–8The judgment contains an apparent arithmetic inconsistency: its stated recalculated heads total Rs. 14,27,372 (Rs. 12,94,272 + Rs. 1,33,100), which would produce an enhancement of Rs. 9,27,372 over the original Rs. 5,00,000 award; however, the judgment’s table and operative direction state total compensation of Rs. 14,22,372 and an additional amount of Rs. 9,22,372
pp. 6–8Original Court PDF
JEMALBHAI BHURABHAI BARIYAvsBUDH RAM DUNGRA RAM
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
