MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court

“Just Compensation Must Restore the Victim, As Far As Money Can” – In a significant ruling reinforcing the welfare character of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that a minor injured in a motor accident cannot be treated as a “non-earner” merely because she was a student at the time of the accident. Enhancing the compensation from ₹1,20,000 to ₹9,96,216, Justice Sudeepti Sharma emphasized that “just compensation” must account not only for physical disability but also for loss of future earning capacity, dignity, and matrimonial prospects.

15-Year-Old Student with 13% Permanent Disability

The appellant, Sudesh, was 15 years old and studying in Class 10 at the time of the accident on 23 October 2007. She suffered multiple injuries, including reduced range of motion in her right ankle joint, and was ultimately assessed to have sustained 13% permanent disability of the whole body.

The Tribunal awarded ₹1,20,000 with 7.5% interest but failed to calculate any loss of earning capacity or add future prospects, treating the minor essentially as a non-earning individual.

Aggrieved by the inadequacy of the award, the claimant approached the High Court seeking enhancement.

Assessment of Notional Income: Minimum Wages of Skilled Worker as Benchmark

The Court found that the Tribunal had erred in not assessing the loss of earning due to disability. Since there was no documentary proof of income, the Court relied upon the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and recent Supreme Court precedents.

Referring to Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari (2025 INSC 1070), the Court reiterated:

“It is now a well-entrenched and consistently reiterated principle of law that a minor child who suffers death or permanent disability in a motor vehicle accident, cannot be placed in the same category as a non-earning individual…”

Following this principle, the High Court assessed the monthly notional income at ₹5,500, being the minimum wages of a skilled worker prevailing in Haryana at the relevant time.

Addition of Future Prospects: 40% for a 15-Year-Old

The Tribunal had failed to add any amount towards future prospects. Relying on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel, the Court held that future prospects are applicable even in cases involving minors.

Accordingly, 40% was added to the notional income, increasing the monthly income to ₹7,700 and the annual income to ₹92,400.

Considering the age of the claimant as 15 years, the Court applied the multiplier of 18 in terms of Sarla Verma and Erudhaya Priya v. State Express Transport Corporation Ltd.

The loss of future earning capacity was recalculated by applying 13% disability to the annual income and then multiplying it by 18, resulting in ₹2,16,216 under this head.

Permanent Disability: Beyond Physical Impairment

Justice Sharma emphasized that permanent disability is not merely a percentage on paper but has multi-dimensional consequences.

The Court observed:

“Permanent disability suffered by an individual not only impairs his cognitive abilities and his physical facilities, but there are multiple non-quantifiable implications for the victim… the very fact that healthy person turns into invalid… makes one suffer loss of dignity.”

Relying on Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, the Court reiterated that compensation must address both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, including pain, suffering, loss of amenities, and matrimonial prospects.

Non-Pecuniary Damages: Recognizing Pain, Dignity and Marriage Prospects

The Tribunal’s award under non-pecuniary heads was found to be meagre.

Pain and Suffering

Considering the young age of the claimant and the lifelong implications of 13% disability, the Court awarded ₹3,00,000 under the head of pain and suffering, drawing support from KS Muralidhar v. R. Subbulakshmi.

Loss of Marriage Prospects

The Tribunal had not awarded any amount under this head. The High Court held this to be a serious omission, observing that the claimant had “her entire life before her.”

Relying on Rahul Ganpat Rao Sable v. National Insurance Company, the Court awarded ₹3,00,000 towards loss of marriage prospects.

Loss of Amenities

Acknowledging the long-term impact on enjoyment of life, ₹2,00,000 was granted for loss of amenities.

Additionally, the Court enhanced amounts under transportation, special diet, attendant charges and medical expenses.

Final Computation and Interest

The total compensation was recalculated at ₹9,96,216. After deducting the ₹1,20,000 already awarded by the Tribunal, the enhanced amount came to ₹8,76,216.

The Court directed that the enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization, in line with Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara and R. Valli v. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation.

The respondents were directed to deposit the enhanced amount within two months, and the Tribunal was instructed to disburse it to the claimant.

Welfare Legislation Demands Realistic and Humane Compensation

This judgment reinforces that the Motor Vehicles Act is a welfare legislation intended to secure “just, fair and reasonable” compensation. By refusing to treat a minor as a non-earner and by recognizing the profound impact of permanent disability on dignity, career, and matrimonial life, the High Court has aligned compensation jurisprudence with constitutional values of fairness and human dignity.

The decision serves as a reminder that percentages of disability cannot capture the full measure of human loss—and that courts must ensure that compensation reflects both economic and emotional realities.

Date of Decision: 11 February 2026