P&H HC Raises Total Compensation For Parents Of 7-Year-Old Killed In Road Accident To Rs 9.17 Lakh, Applying Skilled-Worker Minimum Wage

In brief

The question

1. Whether the deceased child’s income should be assessed by reference to the Haryana minimum wage for a skilled worker applicable on the date of the accident.

The court held

The appeal was allowed.

It also directed

The Tribunal’s award was modified, and total compensation was enhanced to ₹9,17,285, inclusive of the ₹5,00,000 already awarded; the enhanced amount was therefore ₹4,17,285.

Interest at 9% per annum was payable from the date the claim petition was filed until realization.

The respondents were directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with the Tribunal within two months, for disbursement to the appellants in equal shares.

01Facts

On 2 September 2015, seven-year-old Mayank was struck and fatally injured by a Tata Sumo while standing with his father at the roadside.

pp. 1–4

His parents filed a claim under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

pp. 1–4

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra, awarded ₹5,00,000, assessing Mayank’s notional income at ₹30,000 per annum and applying a multiplier of 15.

pp. 1–4

His parents appealed for enhancement.

pp. 1–4

02Issues

i.1. Whether the deceased child’s income should be assessed by reference to the Haryana minimum wage for a skilled worker applicable on the date of the accident.

pp. 4–6

ii.2. Whether a multiplier of 18, rather than 15, should be applied in calculating the loss of dependency for a seven-year-old child.

pp. 4–8

03Law Applied

The claim arose under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

p. 3

For assessing the income of a deceased minor, the Court applied the principle that the minimum wage applicable to a skilled worker in the relevant State on the accident date may be used; the Haryana rate was ₹6,406.67 per month.

pp. 5–6

On the multiplier, the Court relied on Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan, 2013 (9) SCC 65, and Devendra Kumar Tripathi v. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another (15 December 2025), applying a multiplier of 15 where the deceased was up to 15 years old.

pp. 6–8

It distinguished Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari, observing that it had not considered the larger-bench decision in Reshma Kumari.

pp. 6–7

Provisions in the judgment · 4 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 279

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166 Section 140 Section 163

04Reasoning

The Court accepted the Haryana skilled-worker minimum wage in force on the accident date and rounded Mayank’s monthly income to ₹6,407, producing an annual income of ₹76,884.

pp. 5–8

It added 40% for future prospects, deducted one-half for personal expenses, and applied a multiplier of 15, yielding loss of dependency of ₹8,07,285.

pp. 5–8

It rejected the claim for a multiplier of 18 because the authorities it followed prescribed 15 for a child of Mayank’s age.

pp. 5–8

Adding ₹15,000 each for funeral expenses and loss of estate, and ₹80,000 for parental consortium, it calculated total compensation at ₹9,17,285.

p. 9

05Holding

The appeal was allowed.

pp. 9–10

The Tribunal’s award was modified, and total compensation was enhanced to ₹9,17,285, inclusive of the ₹5,00,000 already awarded; the enhanced amount was therefore ₹4,17,285.

pp. 9–10

Interest at 9% per annum was payable from the date the claim petition was filed until realization.

pp. 9–10

The respondents were directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with the Tribunal within two months, for disbursement to the appellants in equal shares.

pp. 9–10

LawLens.Punjab and Haryana High Court

Original Court PDF