New Delhi, India  
Judiciary

Punjab & Haryana HC Awards ₹2.27 Lakh Compensation to Parents for Death of Unborn Child in Road Accident

By Saket Sourav      12 November, 2026 09:19 PM      0 Comments
Punjab Haryana HC Awards 227 Lakh Compensation to Parents for Death of Unborn Child in Road Accident

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)



Share this article:

About:

Saket is a law graduate from The National Law University and Judicial Academy, Assam. He has a keen ...Read more

Follow:
Linkedin


Leave a feedback about this
Related Posts
View All

Punjab and Haryana High Court Recommends Departmental Action against Magistrate for Violating High Court direction. Punjab and Haryana High Court Recommends Departmental Action against Magistrate for Violating High Court direction.

"The expression and reasoning contained in the impugned order do not show that the disobedience of the direction by this Court was erroneous as claimed in the explanation, therefore, the same is not worth acceptance", Justice Bajaj noted.

Police protection to fund manager alleging threat from Kirron Kher & aide: Punjab & Haryana HC [Read Order] Police protection to fund manager alleging threat from Kirron Kher & aide: Punjab & Haryana HC [Read Order]

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed Chandigarh Police to provide security for a week to fund manager Chaittnya Aggarwal and his family who claimed to have received threats from Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP) Member of Parliament (MP) Kirron Kher and her political aide Sahdev Salaria. What is the case about? Find out here.

Most interested witness being the father of deceased, SC upholds acquittal of 6 accused for murder [Read Judgment] Most interested witness being the father of deceased, SC upholds acquittal of 6 accused for murder [Read Judgment]

Explore the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the acquittal of six accused in a murder case. Delve into the intricacies of the case involving the father of the deceased as a key witness, and understand the legal rationale behind the verdict.

Supreme Court Collegium approves new Chief Justices for five key High Courts in India [Read Recommendations] Supreme Court Collegium approves new Chief Justices for five key High Courts in India [Read Recommendations]

The Supreme Court Collegium approves new Chief Justices for Allahabad, Jharkhand, Gauhati, Punjab & Haryana, and Rajasthan High Courts. Read about the appointments.

New Release

Senior Citizens Rights Handbook

The Senior Citizen Rights Handbook is a comprehensive guide designed to empower elderly citizens with clear and accessible knowledge of their legal and social rights in India.

Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email