JUDGMENT :

VIKAS BAHL, J.

1. The parents of the deceased-Sahil, who was aged about 3 years at the time of accident, have filed the present appeal for enhancement of compensation. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, vide award dated 03.10.2023 had awarded an amount of compensation of Rs.9,10,000/- to the claimants along with interest on account of death of Sahil which had occurred in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 03.05.2021. The only issue that arises for consideration before this Court is whether the appellants are entitled to additional compensation or not as other aspects are not being disputed.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS:-

2. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that in the present case, income of the deceased-Sahil was taken as Rs.50,000/- per annum i.e., Rs.4166/- per month. It is submitted that as per the latest judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Baby Sakshi Greola Vs. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and another reported as 2025(1) RCR (Civil) 238 as well as in the case of Karuna Parmar Vs. Prakash Sinha and others and other connected matter, reported as 2025 INSC 1244, it has been held that the deceased child is not to be given notional income but the minimum salary is to be assessed by taking into consideration the minimum wages payable to a skilled worker in the concerned State as the said amount would be the minimum amount which the child would be able to earn when the child becomes a major. It is submitted that in view of the abovesaid judgments, the minimum wages payable to the skilled worker w.e.f. 01.09.2021 in the State of Haryana was Rs.11,233.18 and it is submitted that thus, monthly income of the deceased should be taken as Rs.11,233.18.

3. It is further argued that in the present case, multiplier which had been applied by the Tribunal was ‘16’ which is on the lower side whereas multiplier in the present case should have been applied as ‘18’. It is submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhimanyu Partap Singh Vs. Namita Sekhon and another, reported as 2022(3) PLR 99, had after taking into consideration the law laid down in various judgments observed that in the case of a 5½ years old child, multiplier of ‘18’ would apply. It is further submitted that while awarding an amount on account of loss of estate and transportation and funeral expenses as well as loss of consortium, the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the 10% increase after every three years. It is thus, submitted that the appellants would be entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.16,49,366/- and the said additional compensation should be awarded to the appellants along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation and the detailed chart regarding the same has been handed over by the counsel which is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“FAO NO. 1520 OF 2024

APPELLANT HEREIN: CLAIMANT (S)

DATE OF ACCIDENT: 03.05.2021

NATURE OF CASE: DEATH

AGE OF DECEASED: 3 years

LIABILITY TO PAY COMPENSATION: Respondent No.3 (Insurance Company). National insurance company limited DRIVING LICENCE/ROUTE PERMIT/INSURANCE: NIL

DETAILS OF RELIEF GRANTED/CLAIMED

Sd/- Ajay

Advocate for the appellants”

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.3:-

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company, on the other hand, has submitted that minimum wages which should be applicable in the present case should not be that of a skilled labourer but should be of an unskilled labourer. It is further submitted that the rate of interest which is sought to be claimed by the appellants i.e., 9% per annum is highly excessive and the highest rate of interest that can be awarded on the additional amount of compensation is at best 6% per annum.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:-

5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has perused the paper book.

6. The first issue which requires consideration is as to what amount could be assessed as monthly income of the deceased wh