Punjab and Haryana High Court rules 13-year-old student ‘skilled worker’, hikes accident payout to family by 400%

Justice Alka Sarin said that the tribunal’s lump-sum approach was flawed. (Image enhanced using AI)

The order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court added that the tribunal  has awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs 1.50 lakh, which, in the opinion of this court, is erroneous inasmuch.

Background

• The plea was filed by Nirmala Devi and another against a 2007 award by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Ambala.
• The case centred on the death of Dalip Kumar, a Class 8 student who was killed in an accident on April 12, 2006.
• The MACT had originally awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs 1.50 lakh, which the appellants challenged as being erroneously low and failing to apply standard legal principles such as multipliers or deductions.
• Following the MACT decision, the family moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court, challenging the amount of the award.

Findings of Punjab and Haryana High Court

• The teenage boy was a student; hence, his income ought to have been assessed as per the minimum wage as applicable to a skilled worker.
• The Supreme Court in the case of Karuna Parmar v. Prakash Sinha and others, while relying on Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and another, awarded the compensation in the case of a six years’ old child who had died in an accident in line with the minimum wages applicable for a skilled worker in the year 2014.
• In a recent judgment, the apex court in the case of Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari and another held that a minor child who suffers death or permanent disability in a motor vehicle accident cannot be placed in the same category as a non-earning individual for the purposes of assessing the amount of compensation.

• In these cases the court applied a multiplier of ‘18’ besides granting future prospects and compensation under the other heads.
• It is appropriate to assess the income as per the minimum wage for a skilled worker as applicable in April 2006 as the accident took place on April 12, 2006.
• Since no addition has been made towards future prospects, an addition of 40 per cent ought to have been applied.
• Keeping in view the age of the child, 50 per cent deduction would be applicable as held by the Supreme Court in the cases of Bishnupriya Panda v. Basanti Manjari Mohanty and another.

Allahabad HC: Can’t assume Class 12 student wasn’t earning

• In a recent judgement, the Allahabad High Court enhanced the compensation awarded to the family of a 22-year-old student who lost his life in a road accident in 2014.
• MACT, Bulandshahar originally passed an award in April 2026, granting the victim’s family a sum of Rs 2.60 lakh with seven per cent interest.
• The family filed an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking an enhancement, arguing that the tribunal has wrongly assessed the victim’s income and failed to account for prospects.
• The court said that merely because the deceased was studying in Class 12, it cannot be presumed that he was not earning anything.
• While modifying the tribunal order, the court awarded over Rs 16 lakh to the victim’s family.