Compensation for minors in accident cases must include minimum wage provisions and future prospects, ensuring claims reflect fair assessments as established by court precedents.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Both these appeals arising out of judgment and award dated 20.03.2021 passed in MVC No.474/2019. 2. The claimants has filed MFA No.4242/2022 being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 20^th March 2021, passed in MVC No.474/2019 by the IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Shimoga, sitting at Bhadravathi and Addl. MACT.(IV) (for short `Tribunal') and MFA No.3740/2021 is filed by the insurer against the very same judgment and award.

With the consent of both the sides, both appeals are taken up together for final disposal.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

4. The brief facts of the case are that, on 10.11.2018, at about 7.00 a.m., the deceased-Diya Shekavath, daughter of claimants aged about 15 years met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing registration No.KA.49.1529, near Southikere of N.R.Pura Taluk. Deceased was a passenger of the said bus. She sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. She was studying in the 10th Standard at Poornaprajna Education Centre, Bhadravathi. She was said to be a bright student and actively participated in sports activities. The claimants had only one daughter, who lost her life in the accident. With these reasons, claimants sought for compensation of Rs.78,00,000/-.

5. Respondent No.1 was the driver, respondent No.2 was the owner and respondent No.3 was the insurer of the offending bus.

6. Before the Tribunal, respondents No.1 and 2 remained ex-parte and respondent No.3 filed written statement denying the averments stated in the claim petition and denied its liability to pay the compensation and prayed to dismiss the petition.

7. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. The Tribunal recorded evidence and after hearing arguments of both the parties, the Tribunal by the impugned judgment, awarded following amount of compensation:

1. Towards loss of dependency : Rs.16,20,000/-

2. Towards transportation of dead : Rs. 15,000/- body and funeral expenses

3. Towards loss of love and affection : Rs. 40,000/- Total : Rs.16,75,000/-

8. The Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the offending bus. The Tribunal took the notional income of the deceased as ₹15,000/-, added 50% of the income towards future prospects, applied the multiplier of ‘18’, and calculated the amount of compensation under the head “loss of dependency.”

9. Being dissatisfied with the award passed by the Tribunal, the claimant preferred MFA No. 4242/2022 seeking enhancement of compensation, while respondent No. 3 - the insurer preferred MFA No. 3740/2021 on the ground that an exorbitant amount had been awarded by the Tribunal.

10. I have heard the arguments of learned advocates for both the parties.

11. The fact of the accident and the resultant death of the claimants’ daughter, aged about 15 years and studying in SSLC, is not in dispute. Hence, no need to reconsider the same.

12. The learned counsel for the claimants vehemently contended that the Tribunal, while taking the notional income of ₹15,000/-, not included the amount towards future prospects. It has not followed the law laid down in the case ofKajal v. Jagdish Chand and Others reported in(2020) 4 SCC 413 and recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case ofHitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Anr., decided on8 ^th August, 2025 inCivil Appeal No.10278/2025 (SLP(C)No.14444/2025) and not taken notional income of deceased as per Minimum Wages Act.

13. Learned counsel ha