Case at a Glance
A seven-year-old boy waiting with his father at a bus stop in Sirsa was hit by a car whose driver fled; he died the next day. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat awarded his parents ₹29,47,000, taking his notional income at ₹18,500.81 a month. On the insurer’s appeal, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that for a minor the minimum wage of a skilled worker on the date of the accident is the correct measure, that Deputy Commissioner (DC) rates “cannot be applied generally in all cases”, fixed income at ₹12,646 a month and reduced the award to ₹20,45,168 with 6% interest.
On 21 February 2024, at about 5 p.m., a father and his young son were at a bus stop near Bajeka Road, Sirsa, when a Swift Dzire coming from the Fatehabad side hit the boy and the driver fled. The child was taken to Government Hospital, Sirsa and then to a hospital in Hisar, where he died on 22 February 2024. An FIR under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC was registered the next day. The parents claimed ₹15 lakh. The owner and driver denied the accident but admitted the car was insured; the insurer also denied the accident and alleged breach of policy terms.
By its award dated 16 July 2026, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat awarded ₹29,47,000 with 6% interest from the date of the claim petition, payable jointly and severally by the driver, owner and insurer and to be shared equally by the parents. It took the child’s monthly income as ₹18,500.81, relying on a Haryana notification dated 22 February 2024 effective from 1 January 2024. The insurer appealed, arguing that the same notification put the minimum wage of a skilled worker at ₹12,646.12 a month. The claimants did not dispute that figure but argued, in the alternative, that the DC rate for a skilled worker was about ₹18,000 a month.
The Key Question Before the Court
How should a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal fix the notional income of a child killed in an accident — by the statutory minimum wage of a skilled worker, or by the higher DC rates?
Minimum Wage of a Skilled Worker, Not DC Rates, for a Minor
Justice Deepinder Singh Nalwa held that in cases of minor victims, the applicable minimum wage of a skilled worker at the time of the accident should be taken as income. He relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari and another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3446, which in turn followed Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and Ors., (2020) 02 SC CK 0004, (2020) 4 SCC 413, and Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Anr., (2024) 12 SC CK 0020, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3692, and had used the skilled minimum wage for an eight-year-old victim.
On the claimants’ plea for DC rates, the Court held that “the DC rates fixed by the Deputy Commissioner cannot be applied generally in all cases”. Following co-ordinate Bench decisions including New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Surti Devi and others, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Neelam and others, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Poonam and others and Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd. and others v. Beant Kaur and others, it noted that DC rates mainly apply to government establishments, have no statutory basis under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, and vary from district to district. It fixed notional income at ₹12,646 a month (₹1,51,752 a year), added 40% future prospects, deducted 50% for personal expenses, applied a multiplier of 18, and added ₹18,150 for loss of estate, ₹18,150 for funeral expenses and ₹96,800 for loss of consortium (₹48,400 for each parent).
What the Court Actually Held
- For a minor victim, notional income is to be fixed at the applicable minimum wage of a skilled worker on the date of the accident, following Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari and another.
- DC rates cannot be applied generally: they mainly apply to government establishments, lack a statutory basis under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, and vary by district.
- With income of ₹12,646 a month, 40% future prospects, 50% deduction and a multiplier of 18, loss of dependency is ₹19,12,068; with conventional heads, total compensation is ₹20,45,168, a reduction of ₹9,01,832.
- The insurer, driver and owner must jointly and severally deposit ₹20,45,168 with 6% interest from the date of the claim petition within two months, to be shared equally by the parents and disbursed to their bank accounts.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Fixing income for a child who had not started earning is one of the most disputed questions in MACT practice; the ruling gives Haryana tribunals a clear benchmark — the skilled minimum wage.
- It closes the door on routine use of DC rates, which can be considerably higher, in compensation for minors.
- It shows how the Supreme Court’s line from Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and Ors. to Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari and another is being applied in death claims of young children.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Claimants
- In a child’s death or injury claim, plead notional income on the skilled-worker minimum wage notified for the State on the date of the accident, and file the notification.
- Expect DC rates to be rejected unless there is a specific basis for them.
- Parents are each entitled to filial consortium (here ₹48,400 each), in addition to loss of estate and funeral expenses.
For Counsel
- Cite Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari and another, Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and Ors. and Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Anr. on minors’ notional income.
- For insurers, check which figure the Tribunal actually took from the minimum wages notification; here the difference was over ₹9 lakh.
- The judgment applied 40% future prospects and a multiplier of 18 for a seven-year-old without separate discussion — useful as a reference computation.
Key Takeaways
- Notional income of a child victim = skilled-worker minimum wage on the date of the accident.
- DC rates are not a general yardstick; they lack statutory basis and vary across districts.
- Award reduced from ₹29,47,000 to ₹20,45,168, with 6% interest unchanged.
- Deposit within two months, shared equally by the parents and paid into their bank accounts.
Frequently Asked Questions
How is compensation calculated when a child dies in a road accident?
Following Supreme Court rulings, the Punjab and Haryana High Court took the minimum wage of a skilled worker as the child’s notional income, added 40% future prospects, deducted 50% for personal expenses, applied a multiplier of 18 for a seven-year-old, and added conventional heads.
Can DC rates be used to fix a child’s income in a MACT claim?
Not generally. The Court held that DC rates mainly apply to government establishments, have no statutory basis under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, and vary from district to district.
How much did the parents finally get?
₹20,45,168 with 6% interest from the date of filing the claim, shared equally, instead of the ₹29,47,000 awarded by the Tribunal.
Conclusion
The judgment trims an award that had been built on an inflated income figure, but does so by applying a now-settled Supreme Court method for valuing the life of a child. It gives tribunals and insurers in Haryana a single reference point — the skilled minimum wage — and sets aside DC rates as a general yardstick.
Practical takeaway: In claims for the death of a minor, take notional income from the skilled-worker minimum wage notified on the accident date; DC rates will not ordinarily be accepted.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com