-
by Admin
15 February 2026 5:35 AM
“Even A Minor Has Future Prospects”, In a compassionate and legally significant ruling Supreme Court of India enhanced compensation awarded to the parents of a 14-year-old boy who died in a road accident, declaring that even in the case of a minor, future prospects must be considered when determining compensation for fatal motor accidents.
The bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, while allowing the appeal in Devendra Kumar Tripathi & Others v. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Another, held that the notional income of a minor deceased must reflect minimum wages, and further directed an addition of 40% towards future prospects, applying the principle uniformly recognised in motor accident jurisprudence.
“The Death Of A Minor Is A Loss Beyond Money, But Law Must Not Compound The Grief With Meagre Relief”
The appellants, parents of a 14-year-old boy who died after being struck by a rashly driven truck while on his way to school, approached the Supreme Court seeking enhancement of the compensation originally granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and subsequently modified by the High Court.
The Tribunal had awarded ₹1,29,500 as compensation. The High Court marginally enhanced it to ₹4,70,000, rejecting the family's contention regarding the potential income the child could have earned in the future.
Counsel for the appellants argued that the deceased child was academically sound and that evidence of his contemporaries entering gainful employment ought to be considered in assessing future income. However, the Court declined to accept speculative comparisons, noting instead:
“While hope for a child’s future may be boundless in emotion, compensation must be grounded in tangible legal standards. But that standard must still be fair—not symbolic.”
“Minimum Wages Apply To The Deceased Minor — Loss Of Dependency Cannot Be A Nominal Guess”
The Court fixed ₹5,400/- per month as the notional income of the deceased minor, based on the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for a Class B city. To this, a 40% addition for future prospects was applied, resulting in a recalculated compensation for loss of dependency of ₹6,80,400/-.
The Court applied the multiplier of 15 in line with the ruling in Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan, and rejected the application of an 18 multiplier as laid down in Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon, clarifying that:
“The principle in Baby Sakshi applied to cases involving disability, not death. In a fatal case of a minor child, the multiplier of 15 is appropriate.”
Filial Consortium, Estate Loss And Pain & Suffering Included In Enhanced Award
Apart from loss of dependency, the Court recognised multiple heads of compensation in accordance with settled precedent:
This brought the total compensation to ₹8,65,400/-, more than six times the amount originally awarded by the Tribunal.
“The child did not die on the spot. He lived another day in pain. That suffering cannot go unacknowledged by law,” the Court observed.
Interest Enhanced To 7.5%, Payment Directed Within Two Months
The Supreme Court also modified the rate of interest, directing the insurance company to pay the enhanced amount with interest at 7.5% per annum, and ensure payment is made within two months, after deducting any amount already paid.
“Compensation Must Carry The Message That Every Life—Even A Child’s—Matters Equally Before Law”
The decision reinforces the principle that notional income for a minor should not be fixed arbitrarily low, and that future prospects are not limited to adults with existing income.
In its concluding remarks, the bench expressed a broader concern:
“While the law may not measure the grief of parents or the value of a child’s life in monetary terms, it must avoid the injustice of tokenism. Dignity in life must extend to dignity in death—especially for the youngest among us.”
Date of Decision: 15 December 2025
