Income of deceased minor student must be assessed based on prevalent minimum wages plus future prospects.

In November 2017, a 16-year-old student was riding a bicycle when he was struck from behind by a speeding car driven by Respondent No. 1.

The teenager died from his injuries, leading his legal heirs to file a claim for ₹10,00,000.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) at Junagadh awarded ₹3,64,500 with 8% interest in early 2019, calculating income at a fixed monthly rate of ₹5,000.

The appellants challenged this award before the High Court, seeking an enhancement based on minimum wage standards and proper calculation of future prospects and conventional heads.

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in assessing the notional income and future prospects of the deceased minor student.

2. Whether the compensation awarded under conventional heads, including loss of estate, funeral expenses, and consortium, required enhancement or modification.

The Court applied the principles of determining "just compensation" under the Motor Vehicles Act.

It relied on the landmark judgment in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi (2017) to establish standardized additions for future prospects (40% for those below 40 years) and fixed amounts for conventional heads such as funeral expenses and loss of estate.

It further utilized Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram (2018) regarding the distribution of filial consortium to parents.

Additionally, the Notified Minimum Wages of the state were used to determine notional income for a non-earning student.

The Court determined that the Tribunal’s assessment of ₹5,000 per month was too low given the deceased’s status as a student and the lack of actual income. Instead, it adopted the prevailing minimum wage of ₹7,946 as of the accident date.

Following the age-based brackets in Pranay Sethi, the Court added 40% for future prospects and applied a multiplier of 18.

Because the deceased was a bachelor, a 50% deduction for personal expenses was applied.

While the Court increased the amounts for funeral expenses and loss of estate to match current legal standards, it agreed with the Insurance Company that only the parents—not the siblings—were entitled to consortium, thereby adjusting that specific head accordingly.

The court held that the appellants are entitled to an additional amount of ₹9,69,992 with 8% interest from the date of the petition’s filing.

The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the additional sum within six weeks, and the Tribunal was ordered to disburse the funds to the claimants after verifying court fees.