Notional income of ₹30,000 with a multiplier of 15 applies for calculating compensation for a deceased child’s death.

The Appellant (mother) and Respondent No. 4 (father) filed a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Thane, following the death of their six-year-old son in a road accident.

On December 8, 1997, the Tribunal awarded a lump sum compensation of ₹35,000/- for mental agony and funeral expenses but rejected the claim for loss of future dependency because the deceased was a child and no specific evidence of potential future earnings was provided.

The Appellant approached the High Court seeking enhancement of compensation.

1. Whether the legal representatives of a deceased child are entitled to compensation for loss of dependency based on notional income despite a lack of evidence regarding future prospects

2. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal should be enhanced in light of established Supreme Court precedents concerning child fatalities

The Court applied the principle of determining "notional income" for non-earning minors as established in Kishan Gopal and another v. Lala and others (2014), which set a notional earning of ₹30,000/- per annum including future prospects.

It further relied on Smt. Sarla Varma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009) to apply a multiplier of 15 for the age group of the deceased.

Additionally, the Court followed Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto and others (2023), which reiterated that loss of dependency must be calculated for deceased children using notional income and multipliers even if specific career evidence is unavailable.

The Court observed that while the Tribunal rejected dependency claims due to a lack of evidence regarding the child's schooling or future career, the Supreme Court has since settled that compensation for a child's death should be calculated using a notional income of ₹30,000/-.

The Court reasoned that since the deceased was only six years old, he would have been fully dependent on his parents; therefore, no deductions for personal expenses were necessary.

By applying the notional income of ₹30,000/- and a multiplier of 15, the Court calculated the loss of dependency at ₹4,50,000/-.

The Court maintained the original ₹35,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under conventional heads (funeral, agony, love and affection) as those remained undisturbed.

The Court ordered that the enhanced amount (an additional ₹4,50,000/-) be paid jointly and severally by the owner and the Insurance Company (Respondents 2 and 3) with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the claim application. The final amount is to be distributed equally between the Appellant (mother) and Respondent No. 4 (father).