Update: 02 Apr 2025

A kid who is still in the womb at the time of an automobile incident is also able to receive compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act (MV Act), according to the Punjab and Haryana High Court. In the current case, the court granted an extra Rs. 9.29 lakh in damages for a motor vehicle accident.

According to Justice Suvir Sehgal, the claimants have not received any recompense for their loss of consortium and estate, which is something that is rightfully theirs. The infant will also be eligible for compensation under the MV Act, despite the fact that he was still within the mother’s body on the day of the tragic tragedy.

The individuals making the claim, who were the dead Rakesh Kumar‘s attorneys, filed a lawsuit in order to increase the 2016 compensation award from the Tribunal. After his motorcycle struck a tractor, Kumar passed away from his wounds. When the accident occurred, Kumar’s widow was expecting a child. In November 2015, about two months after the deceased’s death, a boy was born. The person who died and an eyewitness to the event established the accident’s facts, the court concluded after reviewing the arguments and documentation on file.

The eyewitness unequivocally stated in their deposition that the person being charged was operating the faulty tractor recklessly and that the tractor driver had fled the scene, leaving the tractor behind, after colliding with the motorcycle. According to Justice Sehgal, compensation was calculated based on the assumption that the person who passed away, who was 24 years old and operated a building materials store, made Rs. 6,000 a month.

Since there was no documentation proving his income, the deceased was considered a casual laborer. The Haryana government announced a minimum wage of Rs. 5,886 per month for unskilled labor, effective July 1, 2015. The State Government changed the minimum monthly salary for unskilled labor to Rs. 7,600, effective November 1, 2015, by virtue of an update dated October 21, 2015. A fatal incident occurred on September 30, 2015. The Court further stated that it was safe to presume that the deceased’s monthly salary was Rs. 7,200.

Additionally, it stated that the Tribunal applied a multiplier of 18 appropriately, negating the need for an increase. The Tribunal has granted Rs. 20,000 to cover the deceased’s burial costs. The judge noted that Kumar’s widow was expecting at the time of the disaster and that no compensation had been given to the plaintiffs for the loss of their estate and consortium, which was something that should have been given. The Court stated that “claimants are entitled to award under conventional heads, for future prospects, etc….head-wise various calculations of compensation demand to be modified” in reference to Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others [(2018) 18 SCC 130].

Based on the aforementioned, the Court determined that the appellant would be eligible for an extra payment of Rs. 9,29,000 (rounded off), which would be paid to them with interest rate at a rate of 7.5% per year starting on the date the claim petition was filed.