Minor Child Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earning Person in Motor Accident Claims; Compensation Must Be Based on Minimum Wages of a Skilled Worker: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Case Name: Asha and Another v. Malkit Singh @ Meeta and Others

Date of Judgment: 2 September 2026

Citation: FAO-335-2024

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harsh Bunger

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a minor child who dies in a motor vehicle accident cannot be treated merely as a non-earning person while calculating compensation. The loss of income in such cases must be assessed on the basis of the minimum wages payable to a skilled worker in the State concerned on the date of the accident. Applying the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari, the Court assessed the notional monthly income of the deceased three-year-old child at ₹10,382.40, being the minimum wage of a skilled worker in Haryana at the relevant time. It added 40% towards future prospects, deducted 50% towards personal expenses and applied a multiplier of 18. The Court consequently enhanced the compensation from ₹3.70 lakh to ₹16,79,819, with interest at 7.5% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of the claim petition until realisation.

Summary: The appeal was filed by the parents of Krishna, a three-year-old child who died in a road accident on 19 April 2019. The claimants sought enhancement of the compensation of ₹3.70 lakh awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala, through its award dated 19 July 2023.

On the date of the accident, Krishna’s father, Ram Jivan, had taken him to a shop on Purani Ghas Mandi Road to purchase candies. After receiving the candies, the child crossed the road and reached the other side, where his mother was standing. At that time, a canter bearing registration No. HR-38J-3147, driven by Malkit Singh @ Meeta, allegedly came from the highway side at a high speed and turned towards Govind Vihar Colony. The vehicle struck Krishna, causing grievous injuries. He was taken to the Civil Hospital, Ambala City, where he was declared dead. FIR No.160 dated 19 April 2019 was registered under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC at Police Station Ambala City.

The claimants pleaded that Krishna was their only child and that they had undergone a sterilisation procedure after his birth, leaving them with no possibility of having another child. The offending vehicle was owned by Gian Chand and insured with United India Insurance Company Limited.

The driver and owner denied that the accident had occurred due to the offending vehicle and alleged false implication. The Insurance Company also contested liability and pleaded that the driver did not possess a valid and effective driving licence and that the vehicle lacked valid registration and permit documents. However, the respondents did not produce any oral evidence before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal concluded that Krishna had died because of injuries sustained in the accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the canter. For determining compensation, it relied upon Shanti Devi v. Rakesh Kumar and awarded ₹3 lakh for the death of the minor child, ₹15,000 towards funeral expenses, ₹15,000 towards loss of estate and ₹40,000 towards filial consortium. A total compensation of ₹3.70 lakh was awarded with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.

The parents challenged the award as grossly inadequate. They argued that a child who dies or suffers permanent disability in a motor accident cannot be placed in the same category as an ordinary non-earning person merely because the child was not gainfully employed on the date of the accident. It was submitted that the deceased child’s income should be notionally determined with reference to the minimum wages payable to a skilled worker in the State where the accident occurred.

The High Court relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari, which clarified that where a child suffers injury or dies in a motor vehicle accident, the loss of income must be calculated with reference to the minimum wages payable to a skilled worker in the respective State at the relevant time. In view of this binding principle, the High Court found that the lump-sum compensation awarded by the Tribunal could not be sustained.

Since the accident occurred in Haryana on 19 April 2019, the High Court adopted ₹10,382.40 per month as the notional income of the deceased child, corresponding to the minimum wages payable to a skilled worker in Haryana on that date. The annual income was accordingly calculated at ₹1,24,588.80.

The Court added 40% of the annual income, amounting to ₹49,835.52, towards future prospects. After making a deduction of 50% towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased, the annual loss of dependency was assessed at ₹87,212.16. Considering that Krishna was three years old at the time of his death, the Court applied a multiplier of 18, resulting in a total loss of dependency of ₹15,69,818.88.

In addition to the loss of dependency, the Court awarded ₹40,000 each to both parents towards filial consortium, amounting to ₹80,000. A further sum of ₹15,000 was awarded towards loss of estate and ₹15,000 towards funeral expenses. The total compensation was consequently assessed at ₹16,79,818.88 and rounded off to ₹16,79,819.

Decision: The appeal was disposed of by modifying the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala. The total compensation was enhanced from ₹3,70,000 to ₹16,79,819. The enhanced component of ₹13,09,819 was directed to carry interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realisation. The driver, owner and insurer were held jointly and severally liable; however, since the offending vehicle was insured, United India Insurance Company Limited was directed to pay the enhanced compensation to the claimants within eight weeks from receipt of a certified copy of the order.