-
by Admin
17 December 2025 10:10 AM
"Even a child in the womb at the time of accident is entitled to be treated as a dependent under the Motor Vehicles Act" — In a significant judgment delivered enhanced compensation for the family of a young deceased accident victim. The Court clarified key principles regarding the assessment of compensation, application of minimum wage notifications, and most notably, the entitlement of an unborn child as a dependent for claiming compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
The tragic incident occurred on 30th September 2015, when Rakesh Kumar, a 24-year-old, who was running a building material shop, died after being hit by a tractor driven rashly by respondent No.1. The widow, who was pregnant at the time, along with the mother of the deceased, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) had earlier awarded ₹8,84,000/- as compensation, which was challenged in these appeals.
Justice Suvir Sehgal, while dealing with the matter, noted, “Delay of one day in the registration of the FIR is inconsequential. In Ravi v. Badrinarayan, the Supreme Court has held that delay in lodging the FIR cannot be a ground to doubt the claimants’ case.”
A key issue was the proper assessment of the deceased's income. The Tribunal had treated the deceased as a casual labourer and fixed his income at ₹6,000 per month. However, the High Court observed that the deceased was running a building material shop, and applying the minimum wage notification effective at the time, determined the income at ₹7,200 per month.
The Court found fault with the Tribunal’s deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses, holding, “It is a matter of record that the deceased was also survived by his mother... Therefore, deduction of 1/4th has to be made from the income of the deceased.”
Importantly, the Court recognized the status of the unborn child. Justice Sehgal observed, “Rakesh Kumar’s widow was pregnant at the time of the accident. A male child was born on 18.11.2015... Even though the child was in the mother’s womb on the day of the unfortunate accident, he will also be entitled to compensation under the MV Act.”
The Court meticulously applied the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. DTC, Pranay Sethi, and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram. Justice Sehgal remarked, “Claimants are entitled to award under conventional heads, for future prospects, etc.” Future prospects at 40% were added following Pranay Sethi, while the multiplier of 18 was retained, considering the age of the deceased.
The Court also corrected the Tribunal's omission regarding conventional heads, stating, “No compensation has been awarded on the account of loss of estate and loss of consortium to the claimants, which deserves to be granted.” Accordingly, ₹1,44,000 was awarded for loss of consortium, divided equally among the widow, mother, and minor son, and ₹18,000 each was awarded towards funeral expenses and loss of estate.
Justice Sehgal, enhancing the total compensation, ruled, “Appellants are held to an additional compensation of ₹9,29,000, which shall be payable to the appellants with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a., from the date of filing of the claim petition.”
The total compensation was fixed at ₹18,12,960/- instead of ₹8,84,000/-, significantly enhancing the financial support to the deceased's family, including the newborn child.
This judgment reinforces the position that unborn children are protected under the Motor Vehicles Act, and compensation cannot be denied on technicalities when dependency and loss are real. The Court also ensured proper adherence to wage notifications, application of future prospects, and inclusion of all relevant conventional heads.
Justice Sehgal summed up the spirit of the ruling by observing, “The loss suffered by the widow, mother, and minor child must be compensated fairly, keeping in view the settled principles of law.”
Date of Decision: 6th March 2025
