SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KAROL, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.
Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel – Appellant
VERSUS
Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 10278 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 14444 of 2025)
Decided On : 08-08-2025
Certainly. Here are the key points derived from the provided legal document:
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal guidance.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. injury sustained in a motor accident. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. high court's assessment of compensation. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. assessment of compensation for minor's loss. (Para 7 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. minimum wage principles in compensation calculation. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. final judgment and directions. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
ORDER
| Time taken for disposal of the claim petition by MACT | Time taken for disposal of the appeal by the High Court | Time taken for disposal of the appeal in this Court |
| 8 years 3 months | 2 years 6 months | 5 months 6 days |
2. By way of the present appeal, the claimant-appellant challenges the Judgment and Order of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad passed on 20th August 2024, in R/First Appeal No.4863 of 2022, which, in turn, was preferred against the order dated 17th September 2021 in M.A.C.P. No.87 of 2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi) & 3rd Additional District Judge – Banaskantha at Deesa.
3. On 14th October 2012, the minor appellant, namely, Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel aged 8 years, along with his father, was standing on a ‘kachcha’ road, when the offending vehicle bearing registration No. GJ-8V-3085, driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit the appellant who was standing on the roadside. As a result of the incident, the appellant sustained severe injuries and thereby, suffered permanent disability. The appellant, through his father, filed a claim petition against the respondents herein under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 [For Short “the Act”], seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- before the Tribunal.
4. The Tribunal, vide order dated 17th September 2021, while partly allowing the claim petition, held Respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to compensate the appellant with an amount of Rs.3,90,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition. The Tribunal, by taking the view of the evidence on record, considered the permanent disability of the appellant at 30% and awarded an amount under the following heads :
| HEADS | AMOUNT |
| Pain and Suffering | Rs.3,00,000/- |
| Loss of Earning of Parents | Rs.30,000/- |
| Medical Expenses | Rs.30,000/- |
| Future Medical Expenses | Rs.30,000/- |
| Total | Rs.3,90,000/- |
5. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the appellant approached the High Court by way of appeal under Section 173 of the Act, seeking an enhancement of the compensation amount. The High Court, vide the impugned judgment, allowed the appeal and enhanced the compensation amount by Rs.4,75,000/-, thus making the total compensation payable as Rs.8,65,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced amount. The Court considered that the appellant suffered a permanent physical impairment/mental disability to the tune of 70% and, therefore, assessed the total permanent disability to the extent of 90%.
6. In view of the decision rendered by this Court in Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and Anr. , (2014) 14 SCC 396 the High Court modified the award rendered by the Tribunal and enhanced the compensation by Rs.4,75,000/-, in the following manner :
| S. No. | PARTICULARS | AMOUNT |
| 1. | Loss of amenities in life on account of disability | Rs.5,00,000/- |
| 2. | Pain and Suffering | Rs.75,000/ |
| 3. | Loss of earnings to parents | Rs.30,000/- |
| 4. | Future medical expenses | Rs.30,000/- |
| 5. | Medical Bills | Rs.30,000/- |
| 6. | Artificial Limb | Rs.2,00,000/- |
| Total | Rs.8,65,000/- |
7. Dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the Courts below, the appellant is now before us. The point of challenge taken is that the Courts below failed to award compensation under the head loss of earnings to the minor appellant. Further, the High Court erred in granting an adequate amount of compensa
Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and Anr.
Compensation for minors in personal injury claims should base notional income on minimum wage standards at the time of the incident, emphasizing socio-economic contexts and established legal preceden....
Permanent disability suffered in motor accident – Quantum of compensation must be adequate and not deficient.
The court established that oral evidence is crucial for determining income in compensation claims, emphasizing the need for accurate assessment of disability.
Injury in motor accident – Quantum of compensation must be adequate and in consonance with minimum wage prevalent in the area where is an unskilled labourer.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.