A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths

In a latest significant judgment Punjab and Haryana High Court has reiterated that the death of a minor child cannot be trivialised by fixing arbitrary notional incomes. Justice Sudeepti Sharma, while enhancing the compensation from Rs. 5 lakh to Rs. 16,45,100/- in Janki Devi & Anr. v. Nirmal Singh & Ors., held that “a deceased minor cannot be equated with a non-earning person merely due to the absence of gainful employment.”

“Notional Income Is Not Fictional Income” – Tribunal Rebuked for Arbitrary Rs. 30,000 Annual Assessment

The Court came down heavily on the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal’s approach, which had pegged the notional income of the 15-year-old deceased girl at Rs.30,000 per annum. Referring to the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari, the High Court observed:

“The Tribunal committed a manifest error in applying an arbitrary figure without basis. Courts must apply the minimum wages of a skilled worker even for a minor who had not yet started earning.”

Applying this standard, the Court reassessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,000, based on prevailing wage rates in the state.

“Children Too Have Futures – And the Law Must Recognize It” – Future Prospects Added at 40%

The Tribunal had ignored future prospects, a key component in compensation jurisprudence post-Pranay Sethi. Justice Sharma declared:

“Even a child has a future. The denial of future prospects to a minor victim amounts to an injustice that contradicts the very ethos of the Motor Vehicles Act.”

The Court thus added 40% to the monthly income in line with Supreme Court precedent, increasing the monthly figure to Rs.14,000.

“Dependency Is Real, Even If the Child Was Dependent” – Standard Deduction of 50% for Personal Expenses Applied

Reversing another error in the Tribunal’s calculations, the High Court held:

“Where the deceased is a bachelor or minor, the deduction towards personal and living expenses is fixed at 50% as per Sarla Verma. The Tribunal failed to apply this well-settled norm.”

With this correction, the Court calculated the annual loss of dependency at Rs.84,000, after deducting Rs.7,000 as personal expenditure from the total income.

“Wrong Multiplier, Wrong Justice” – Multiplier Recalculated from 15 to 18

In perhaps the most direct rectification, the Court ruled that the Tribunal “applied the wrong multiplier of 15, despite clear law on the subject.” Referring once again to Sarla Verma, the Court stated: “For victims in the age bracket of 15 to 20, the correct multiplier is 18. Applying anything less results in a direct erosion of rightful compensation.”

This alone significantly increased the dependency-based compensation to Rs.15,12,000.

“Loss Is Not Just Economic – Emotional Void Must Be Valued” – Consortium and Conventional Heads Enhanced

Justice Sharma did not stop at rectifying income-based errors. The judgment pointedly criticised the Tribunal for giving “meagre or no amount under key conventional heads such as loss of estate, funeral expenses, and consortium.”

Citing Magma General Insurance v. Nanu Ram, the Court acknowledged the right of parents to filial consortium, stating: “The loss of a child is not just financial; it is the shattering of companionship, affection and solace that the child provided. The law must respond to that pain.”

The Court thus awarded Rs.48,400 each to both parents as filial consortium, and further added Rs.18,150 each for loss of estate and funeral expenses, updated in line with the inflation-adjusted figures from Pranay Sethi.

“Justice Delayed Should Not Be Devalued” – 9% Interest Awarded on Enhanced Compensation

Addressing the issue of delayed relief, the High Court granted interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation.

Referring to the decisions in Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara v. Shyam Singh Varma and R. Valli v. TNSTC, the Court observed: “Delayed justice must still be meaningful. The interest awarded must compensate for the wait as well as the loss.”

“Pay in Two Months” – Insurance Company Directed to Comply Promptly

The respondent Insurance Company was ordered to deposit the enhanced amount along with interest within two months before the Tribunal. The disbursal was directed to follow the same ratio fixed earlier by the Tribunal.

The Court concluded: “The parents of the deceased child deserve not just closure, but fair recognition of their loss. The law must serve both – compensation and compassion.”

This judgment marks a compelling reaffirmation of how Indian tort law, especially under the Motor Vehicles Act, must evolve in tune with social and economic realities. It reminds the lower tribunals that “just compensation is not charity; it is a legal right” – and in doing so, offers hope to countless parents seeking fair redress after irreplaceable loss.

Decision Date: 10 December 2025