Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that parents can claim compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the death of an unborn child, where the foetus was 28 weeks old at the time of the accident, treating the foetus as a child. Setting aside a 2000 Tribunal award that dismissed the claim as not maintainable, it awarded ₹2,27,072 with interest.
Justice Parmod Goyal allowed FAO-3426-2001, filed by Suresh Kumar Sethi and his wife against the award of 10.05.2000 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchkula. The Tribunal had found the accident of 08.06.1997 to be caused by rash and negligent driving by the scooter driver, Sanjeev Kumar, but dismissed the claim for the foetus’s death on the strength of the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s decision in Rakesh Kumar v. Prem Lal (1996 ACJ 980).
The claimants said they were returning from PGI on a motorcycle at about 10.45 pm when, because of road blockage, the husband stopped on the kacha portion and the wife got down and walked a few steps ahead. The scooter allegedly came from behind, dragged her eight to ten feet and pinned her against a cement pipe. She was 28 weeks pregnant, suffered multiple injuries including fractures, and the unborn child died.
Advocate A.S. Virk, for the appellants, argued that the Motor Vehicles Act does not limit the kind of loss that can be compensated, whether pecuniary or non-pecuniary, and that loss of a foetus is a grave loss to the parents. He relied on the Kerala High Court Full Bench in Abhulasees P.P. v. Abdumanaf (2017), which had examined and dealt with Rakesh Kumar and held that where pregnancy has advanced beyond six months, and a miscarriage occurs in a road accident, compensation can be claimed for “loss of baby”, treating the foetus as a viable child. The Kerala Bench reasoned from medical jurisprudence that viability is reached between 180 and 210 days of intra-uterine life, and noted the legal recognition of the unborn child in laws including Section 6 of the Limitation Act, Section 20 of the Hindu Succession Act, Section 20 of the Transfer of Property Act and Sections 313 to 316 IPC.
Agreeing, the High Court held that, as the foetus here was 28 weeks old, it “has to be treated as a child”, and that the Tribunal erred in not granting compensation. Since Rakesh Kumarhad been specifically dealt with by the Kerala Full Bench, the Tribunal’s reliance on it could not stand.
On quantum, the Court followed the Supreme Court’s approach in Devendra Kumar Tripathi v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2026), under which the notional income of a child is taken per minimum wages, with 40% future prospects and a 50% deduction for personal expenses. It also followed its own decision in Birbal v. Bhalla (FAO-3408 of 2004, 03.02.2026), which prescribed multipliers varying with a child’s age, with 9 for the age group 0 to 3 years. Because the deceased was unborn, the Court said a multiplier of 9 “would be appropriate”. It took the notional income as ₹1,548 per month, being the minimum wage for an unskilled worker in 1997.
The Court computed loss of dependency at ₹1,17,072 and added ₹15,000 each for loss of estate and funeral expenses and ₹40,000 to each parent for filial consortium, totalling ₹2,27,072. Interest at 7.5% is payable from the date of the claim petition till realisation, except on conventional heads, on which interest runs from August 2017. Apportionment and liability are as per the award. Noting a pending reference on conventional heads in Hasina Yasmin v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2919), the Court left the claimants free to seek the enhanced amount if the Supreme Court answers it in their favour.
Appearances:
For the Appellants: Mr. A.S. Virk, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 3: Mr. Raj Kumar, Advocate (through VC). Service on Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was dispensed with by order of 08.09.2026.
Case Title: Suresh Kumar Sethi & Anr. vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors., FAO-3426-2001 (O&M)
