1. Motor accident — Death of minor girl student — Claim under Section 166, Motor Vehicles Act — Appeal challenging quantum of compensation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(MP) 1033
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Mangilal and Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Hukumchand and Ors. - Respondents
Misc. Appeal No. 961 of 2013
Decided On : 26-08-2025
Important Points
In motor accident claims involving non-earning youth, notional income should be determined based on educational qualifications and family background, with a 40% addition for future prospects if the deceased was under 40 years of age.
Subject
Civil Law - Motor Accident Claims
Act Referred
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT: S.166, S.173(1)
Headnote
(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 166 and 173 - Quantum of compensation - Death of a 17-year-old student - Notional income of a non-earning person should be assessed based on educational qualifications, family background, and future potential rather than being kept static (Paras 15, 16) - Future prospects of 40% are applicable to the income of non-earning persons below the age of 40 years (Para 15) - Multiplier to be applied in accordance with the age of the deceased (Para 17).
(B) Conventional heads of compensation - Parents of the deceased are entitled to compensation under the head of loss of consortium; funeral expenses are to be reasonably quantified (Paras 8, 9).
Facts of the case:
Appellants, being the parents of a 17-year-old girl, challenged the quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal following her death in a motor accident caused by a rashly and negligently driven vehicle. The Tribunal had awarded compensation based on a notional annual income of Rs.15,000/-, treating the deceased as a non-earning member. The appellants sought enhancement on the grounds of the deceased's academic brilliance and the omission of compensation under other permissible heads.
Findings of Court:
The total compensation is enhanced to Rs. 6,48,600/-. The court increased the notional income to Rs. 36,000/- per annum, added 40% for future prospects, and applied a multiplier of 18. Additionally, the court awarded Rs. 80,000/- for loss of consortium and revised funeral expenses to Rs. 15,000/-.
Issues: Whether the notional income of a brilliant 17-year-old student should be assessed higher than the standard non-earning rate and whether future prospects and loss of consortium are applicable in the given circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the income of a non-earning individual should not be assumed to remain stagnant; instead, it should be estimated based on educational qualifications and family background. Furthermore, legal heirs of a non-earning person below 40 years are entitled to future prospects by adding 40% to the income determined on guesswork.
Result: Appeal allowed.
(B) Conventional heads of compensation - Parents of the deceased are entitled to compensation under the head of loss of consortium; funeral expenses are to be reasonably quantified (Paras 8, 9).
Facts of the case:
Appellants, being the parents of a 17-year-old girl, challenged the quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal following her death in a motor accident caused by a rashly and negligently driven vehicle. The Tribunal had awarded compensation based on a notional annual income of Rs.15,000/-, treating the deceased as a non-earning member. The appellants sought enhancement on the grounds of the deceased's academic brilliance and the omission of compensation under other permissible heads.
Findings of Court:
The total compensation is enhanced to Rs. 6,48,600/-. The court increased the notional income to Rs. 36,000/- per annum, added 40% for future prospects, and applied a multiplier of 18. Additionally, the court awarded Rs. 80,000/- for loss of consortium and revised funeral expenses to Rs. 15,000/-.
Issues: Whether the notional income of a brilliant 17-year-old student should be assessed higher than the standard non-earning rate and whether future prospects and loss of consortium are applicable in the given circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the income of a non-earning individual should not be assumed to remain stagnant; instead, it should be estimated based on educational qualifications and family background. Furthermore, legal heirs of a non-earning person below 40 years are entitled to future prospects by adding 40% to the income determined on guesswork.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Shri Manish Jain, learned counsel.
For the Respondent: Shri Mayank Upadhyay, learned counsel.
For the Appellants : Shri Manish Jain, learned counsel.
For the Respondent: Shri Mayank Upadhyay, learned counsel.
Table of Contents
2. Claimants contend notional income should reflect academic brilliance with future prospects and consortium; insurer supports notional income assessment, arguing precedents concern majors. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. How is notional annual income of a deceased minor student assessed in a motor accident compensation claim?
Courts assess notional income not by fixed statutory amount alone but justly, considering age, academic record, rupee value and likely future contribution; for a 17-year-old student, annual income was fixed at Rs36,000. (Para 10 )
4. What conventional heads are payable to parents in a child-death claim?
Parents of a deceased child are entitled to loss of consortium, quantified as Rs80,000 in total, and funeral expenses, enhanced from Rs2,000 to Rs15,000. (Para 8 , 9 )
ORDER :
The appellants have filed this Misc. Appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 being aggrieved by the award dated 18.09.2012 passed by the Additional Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Garoth, Link Court, Bhanpura, District Mandsaur (M.P.) in Claim Case No.03/2011, challenging quantum of compensation.
2. The issue regarding the death caused by the accident and the consequential liability of the Insurance Company is not under dispute.
3. The short facts of the case are that on 07.06.2010 at around 9:15 P.M., the deceased Sonam along with some other persons had gone to a Temple located on Garoth-Burhanpura Road. While they were returning to their home in Bhanpura, a mini truck having registration number MP-13-GA-0964 came from the direction of Garoth. The driver was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner on the wrong side of the road, he struck the group of pedestrians as a result of which all of them sustained grievous injuries. Sonam succumbed to the injuries and died in the accident.
3.1. The appellants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the age of the deceased to be 17 years, awarded a total amount of Rs.2,57,000/- by treating the annual income of the deceased on a national basis as Rs 15,000/-.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased was a bright student aged 17 years. He further submits that the Claims Tribunal erred in treating the income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per annum. Apart from this, only an amount of Rs.2,000/- was awarded towards funeral expenses and no amount of compensation was awarded under other permissible heads by the Claims Tribunal.
5. Learned counsel further submits, by referring to Exs. P-15 to 17 that these documents are the mark sheets of the deceased girl for Class 5th, 8th and 10th respectively. In particular, he refers to the mark sheets of 8th and 10th Classes and submits that the deceased secured distinctions in Sanskrit, Mathematics and Science in Class 8th and again secured distinctions in Hindi, Mathematics and Science in Class 10th. Thus, he submits that the deceased was a brilliant student with a bright future ahead of her.
5.1 He further submits that the Claims Tribunal, while assessing the compensation, ought to have considered the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Kishan Gopal and Another vs. Lala and Others reported in 2013 ACJ 2594; Meena Devi vs. Nunu Chand Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto reported in (2023) 1 SCC 204; Dinesh and Others vs. Mohd. Ikhelaq and Others passed in M.A. No.3655/2019 vide order dated 16.07.2025; The New India Assurance Ltd. vs. Kamalsingh Sisodiya and Others passed in M.A. No.2698/2023 decided on 07.03.2024; Radhakrishna and Another vs. Gokul and Others reported in 2013 ACJ 2860 and Meena Pawaia and Others vs. Ashraf Ali and Others reported in (2021) 17 SCC 148.
5.2 He submits that, based on the academic performance shown in Exs. P-16 and 17, the income of the deceased ought to have been assessed accordingly, with the addition of future prospects and compensation under the head of loss of consortium, among others.
6 . Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3 / Insurance Company submits that the Claims Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased. He further submits that the deceased was a minor girl and the case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants pertain to major persons. Therefore, he supports the findings of the learned Claims Tribunal and prays for dismissal of the appeal.
7. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record.
8. It is seen from the findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal that, apart from the amount of Rs.2,57,000/-, only Rs.2,000/- has been awarded under the head of funeral expenses. No other amount has been awarded under any additional heads. It is seen from the record that the appellants are the mother and father of the deceased; t
