Compensation awarded for the death of a minor must consider future earning potential without discrimination based on age.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and respondents.

2. The short point that arises is whether the compensation of ₹8,91,000/- awarded by the Tribunal on account of death of a boy aged 8 years in the road traffic accident is adequate or not.

3. The records reveal that the deceased Sufiyan met with an accident on 20.05.2017. While he was a pedestrian, a lorry bearing Regn. No.KA-17-B-5994 came from the other side, and dashed him resulting in his death. The parents and younger sister of the deceased-Sufiyan filed a claim petition before the Tribunal (Senior Civil Judge and MACT at Kadur, Chikkamagaluru District) in MVC No.538 of 2017and the Tribunal assessed the compensation under different heads as below:

1. Loss of dependency - ₹8,10,000/- 2. Loss of love and affection - ₹ 25,000/- 3. Funeral expenses - ₹ 15,000/- 4. Transportation of dead body - ₹ 5,000/- 5. Medical expenses - ₹ 36,000/-

----------------

Total - ₹8,91,000/-

----------------

4. The respondent No.3 - Insurance Company is before this Court contending that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant -

Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal erred in assessing the compensation to the tune of ₹8,91,000/-, and it being on the higher side, there is a need for indulgence by this Court. He contends that the loss of dependency does not stand for any reason, since the deceased was not an earning member, and even he was below the age of 15 years. He also contends that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at

7% is on the higher side.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents/

claimants submits that there is no any error committed by the Tribunal in assessing the compensation, and the same is adequate, just and proper. He also contends that the deceased boy was a bright student, and therefore, the Tribunal has adequately compensated the petitioners.

7. A careful perusal of the records would reveal that the Tribunal had placed a reliance on several decisions in coming to such conclusion. It is worth to note that this Court in the case of Sagar -vs- Umesh in MFA No.201430/2023 (DD 19.06.2025) has held that there cannot be any reason for reducing the multiplier on account of the deceased being a minor boy. It was held that the distinction between an adult, who either suffers the injury or dies in the accident, cannot in any way be differentiated from a minor simply because, the future of a minor is not known, and there are various imponderables, which act in shaping his future; reducing the notional income would not stand for any reason. It was also noticed by this Court that the notional income emanates from the fundamental principle that there is a statutory recognition for the minimum wages permissible under the Minimum Wages Act. Therefore, if any minor attains majority and starts earning, his wages cannot be less than the wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act. In that analogy, this Court had held that the wages as well as the multiplier should be as that is applicable to a person, who is aged about 18 to 20 years. Under these circumstances, there is no justification for the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. The quantum of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, on this count cannot be interfered with.

8. So far as the interest is concerned, it is fairly settled principle of law that the rate of interest shall be at 6%, as held this Court in the case of Ms.Joyeeta Bose, -vs- Venkateshan.V in MFA No.5896/2018 c/w MFA Nos.4444/2018 & 4659/2018 (DD 24.08.2020) Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed in part, only in respect of the rate of interest. Hence the following ORDER i) The appeal is allowed in part.

ii) The petitioners/claimants are entitled for the compensation amount