Multiplier of 15 and Minimum Wages for Skilled Workers Applicable in Compensation for Deceased Minors

On March 6, 2023, 14-year-old Jaymin Pravinbhai Patel was killed when a truck (HR-56-B-8182), driven rashly and at excessive speed, hit his bicycle from behind on the Radhanpur-Kandla Highway.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Radhanpur, awarded the deceased’s parents and sister ₹16,92,000/- with 9% interest.

The Insurance Company appealed on the grounds of quantum, arguing that the Tribunal erred by applying a multiplier of 18 instead of 15 for a 14-year-old and by awarding consortium to the sister.

The claimants cross-argued that the monthly income assessed (₹10,000) was lower than the prevailing minimum wage.

1. Whether the multiplier of 18 applied by the Tribunal was legally sustainable for a 14-year-old deceased.

2. Whether the sister of the deceased is entitled to compensation under the head of loss of consortium.

3. Whether the income of a minor deceased should be assessed based on the minimum wage for skilled workers prevalent at the time of the accident.

The Court applied the multiplier of 15 for a child aged 14 as established in Devendra Kumar Tripathi v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (2026 ACJ 186).

Regarding income assessment for non-earning minors, the Court followed Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari (2025 ACJ 1986) and Rushi @ Ruchi Thapa v. M/s. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (2025 1 SCC 635), which mandate using the minimum wage of a skilled worker.

Future prospects were calculated at 40% per National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017 16 SCC 680).

Per Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram (2018 18 SCC 130), only parents—not siblings—are entitled to filial consortium.

The Court found that the Tribunal's assessment of income at ₹10,000 was inadequate; based on Gujarat Government notifications for March 2023, the minimum wage for a skilled worker was ₹12,324.

Adding 40% for future prospects and deducting 50% for personal expenses (as the deceased was a bachelor) resulted in a monthly dependency of ₹8,626.

Though the Insurance Company correctly argued for a lower multiplier (15 instead of 18) and the exclusion of the sister's consortium (reducing consortium from ₹1,44,000 to ₹96,800), these reductions were offset by the upward revision of the base income and conventional heads like loss of estate and funeral expenses (increased to ₹18,150 each).

However, noticing that the difference between the Tribunal’s award (₹16,92,000) and the Court’s recalculated figure was negligible/meagre, the Court declined to interfere with the original award. The appeal was dismissed, and the Registry was directed to transmit any deposited amounts to the Tribunal.