Compensation for minors in personal injury claims should base notional income on minimum wage standards at the time of the incident, emphasizing socio-economic contexts and established legal precedents.

ORDER :

Delay condoned.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 11th March, 2013 in M.A.C.A No.3180 of 2009 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, which in turn was preferred against the Judgment and Order dated 23rd July, 2009 passed in O.P. (MV) No.1606 of 2022 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery.

3. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 3rd July, 2002 the offending vehicle bearing No.KL-14-5795, driven by Respondent No.1, Shri Manual C.M., in a rash and negligent manner, hit one Sona (Minor aged 1½ years), who was being carried by her brother through the road at Vellad. Upon collision, the minor (hereinafter referred to as the Claimant-Appellant) sustained very serious injuries, including brain damage and fracture of the vertical linear skull and is now suffering from Hemiplegia.

4. An application for compensation before the Tribunal seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.9,00,00/- was instituted on behalf of the Claimant-Appellant. The Tribunal, vide its Order, awarded an amount of Rs.3,88,400/- to the Appellant along with interest @ 7.5%. The notional income taken by the Tribunal was Rs.2,500/- and disability suffered by the Claimant- Appellant was fixed at 75%.

5. Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded, the Claimant- Appellant filed an appeal before the High Court for enhancement of compensation on the ground that the Tribunal had not appropriately considered the monthly income; multiplier to be applied; medical expenses; pain and suffering; and future prospects.

6. The High Court, vide the Impugned Order, affirmed the findings of the Tribunal on the aspect of notional income. However, compensation awarded under the head of pain and suffering was enhanced to the tune of Rs.50,000/- and additionally Rs.50,000/- was granted under the heads of loss of amenities in life; loss of expectation of life; and loss of marriage prospects.

7. Yet dissatisfied, the Claimant-Appellant is now before us. The significant points of challenge taken are that the monthly income for a minor has been wrongly assessed by the Courts below.

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. This Court expounded in Rajendra Singh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. , (2020) 7 SCC 256 that the income of the minor child is incapable of precise fixation. More recently in a case, where the injured was aged seven years, in Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Another , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3692, B.R. Gavai, J. writing for the Bench, has elaborated that:

“29. This Court in the case of Kajal (supra) has held that taking notional income is not the correct approach. Instead, the minimum wages payable to a skilled workman in the concerned State has to be taken into consideration because, that would be the minimum amount which she would have earned on becoming a major. In this case, the minimum wage payable to a skilled workman in the State of Delhi at the time of the accident, i.e., 2nd June 2009, was Rs. 4,358/- per month.”

(Emphasis supplied)

9. Therefore, to fix the monthly income of the Claimant-Appellant, we must refer to the prevalent minimum wage for a skilled worker in the State of Kerala in 2002, i.e., the time of the incident. For this purpose, we advert to the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Ibrahim and Ors. v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. 2023 : KER:9306 (MACA No. 2215 of 2010), w