JUDGMENT :

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

1. Parents of deceased-Rahul have filed the present appeal for enhancement of compensation. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nuh, vide award dated 05.03.2024 had awarded the compensation of Rs.14,30,800/- along with interest on account of death of Rahul, which took place in a motor vehicular accident on 14.03.2020. The only issue which arises for consideration in the present appeal is as to whether the present appellants are entitled to enhancement of compensation as other aspects have not been disputed before this Court.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that in the present case, the deceased was a minor and the Tribunal had taken the notional income of the deceased as Rs.9,000/- per month. It is further submitted that this Court in case FAO-1520-2024 titled as “Sharvan Kumar and another Vs. Ravinder and others”, decided on 23.03.2026, after taking into consideration the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that in the case of a minor, the minimum wages payable to a skilled worker at the time of the accident is to be taken into consideration for the purpose of assessing monthly income. It is stated that the monthly income of a skilled worker at the relevant time in the State of Haryana was Rs.10,788/- and thus, the said amount should be taken as the monthly income in the present case also. It is submitted that on account of loss of estate and funeral expenses, the benefit of 10% increase after three years has not been granted and thus, an amount of Rs.16,500/- each on the said accounts should be granted instead of Rs.15,000/- each. It is further submitted that since there were two claimants, thus, to each of the claimants, an amount of Rs.48,000/- was required to be granted on account of loss of consortium, whereas, only an amount of Rs.40,000/- had been granted on the said account. It is submitted that thus an additional compensation of Rs.3,29,345/- is to be paid to the appellants and interest @ 9% per annum be given. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the appellants has further relied upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases titled as Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported as (2009) 6 SCC 121, National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported as (2017) 16 SCC 680, and Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others reported as (2018) 18 SCC 130.

3. The chart showing the details of the claim, as submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants, is reproduced herein below:-

4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3-Insurance Company, on the other hand, has submitted that the rate of interest which is sought to be claimed by the appellants is highly excessive and at best the interest that can be awarded on the additional compensation should be 6% per annum.

5. This Court has considered the arguments raised on behalf of both the parties and has gone through the paper-book and also the chart produced by the learned counsel for the appellants and is of the opinion that the amount of enhancement claimed in the chart is in accordance with law and deserves to be approved, except the rate of interest which is claimed by the appellants.

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (Supra), has held as under:-

“59.In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:-

59.1 The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench.

59.2 As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent.

59.3 While determining the incom