01Facts
The appellants, the parents of a 28-week-old foetus, sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 after the mother was injured in a scooter accident and the foetus died as a result.
¶ 1–4, 6The Tribunal found that the accident was caused by the scooter driver’s rash and negligent driving, but dismissed the claim on the ground that compensation for the loss of an unborn child was not maintainable.
¶ 1–4, 6The parents appealed.
¶ 1–4, 602Issues
i.Whether the parents could claim compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the death of a 28-week-old foetus caused by a motor accident
¶ 4–6ii.If so, what compensation was just and proper, and from what date was interest payable?
¶ 7–1503Law Applied
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 permits compensation for loss resulting from a motor accident; the Act does not confine compensation to a specified category of loss.
¶ 5Relying on the Kerala High Court Full Bench decision in Abhulasees, P.P. v. Abdumanaf, the Court applied the rule that where a pregnancy has advanced beyond six months and a miscarriage results from a road accident, the foetus may be treated as a viable child for a claim for compensation.
¶ 5–6For quantification, the Court relied on Devendra Kumar Tripathi v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. for minimum-wage-based notional income, 40% future prospects, 50% deduction for personal expenses, and conventional heads; it also applied the multiplier principles discussed in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Birbal v. Bhalla.
¶ 9–12Provisions in the judgment · 12 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166
Limitation Act, 1963 Section 6
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 Section 20
Indian Succession Act, 1925 Section 2Section 7Section 112
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Section 13Section 20
Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 313Section 314Section 315Section 316
04Reasoning
The Tribunal had already determined that the accident was caused by the driver’s rash and negligent driving. Because the foetus was 28 weeks old—beyond the six-month threshold adopted in Abhulasees—the Court held that the loss could be compensated as the death of a viable child, rejecting the Tribunal’s maintainability reasoning.
¶ 4, 6For quantification, it used the 1997 minimum wage for an unskilled worker of ₹1,548 per month, added 40% future prospects, deducted 50% for personal expenses, and applied a multiplier of 9. It then added amounts for loss of estate, funeral expenses, and filial consortium.
¶ 12–1405Holding
The appeal was allowed.
¶ 14–16The Court awarded total compensation of ₹2,27,072, comprising ₹1,17,072 for loss of dependency and ₹1,10,000 under conventional heads.
¶ 14–16Interest at 7.5% per annum was payable from the date of filing the claim petition until realization, except on the conventional heads, for which interest was payable from August 2017.
¶ 14–16Apportionment and liability were to be as provided in the Tribunal’s award.
¶ 14–16Original Court PDF
Suresh Kumar SethivsSanjeev Kumar
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
