1. Minor child suffered permanent disability in a motor vehicle accident — Claim for compensation under Section 166, Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1302
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
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Udian Sharma, AOR Mr. Sahil Saraswat, Adv. Mr. Manav Mitra, Adv. Mr. Vishesh Sapra, Adv. Mrs. Harsha Sadhwani, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Awantika Manohar, AOR Ms. Parul Dhurvey, Adv. Mr. Aman Kr Pandey, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Udian Sharma, AOR Mr. Sahil Saraswat, Adv. Mr. Manav Mitra, Adv. Mr. Vishesh Sapra, Adv. Mrs. Harsha Sadhwani, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Awantika Manohar, AOR Ms. Parul Dhurvey, Adv. Mr. Aman Kr Pandey, Adv.
A minor child suffering permanent disability in a motor vehicle accident cannot be treated as a non-earning individual. Compensation for loss of income must be calculated using at least the minimum wages payable to a skilled workman in the respective state for the relevant period.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - Claim petition for compensation under a motor vehicle accident - The grievance is regarding the inadequacy of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and modified by the High Court. The claimant suffered severe permanent disability at the age of 8 years due to a rashly driven vehicle. The Tribunal initially awarded Rs.3,90,000/-, which was enhanced by the High Court to Rs.8,65,000/-. (Paras 3-5)
(B) Legal principles regarding compensation for minors - The court reiterated that a minor's compensation should not be equated to that of a non-earning adult and must consider minimum wages. (Para 9)
(C) Calculation of compensation - The court held the calculation must factor in minimum wages for skilled workers as a basis for compensation in cases involving minors. (Paras 10-15)
Judgement Key Points
Certainly. Here are the key points derived from the provided legal document:
- The case involves a claim for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, related to injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident (!) (!) (!) .
- The minor appellant, aged 8, was injured by a rashly driven vehicle, resulting in severe permanent disability, including amputation of the left lower limb and brain hemorrhage (!) (!) .
- The initial tribunal awarded Rs.3,90,000, which was increased by the High Court to Rs.8,65,000, considering the appellant's disability and suffering (!) (!) (!) .
- The appellant's disability was assessed at 90%, and the courts recognized the need to determine compensation based on the minimum wages applicable to a skilled worker for the relevant period (!) (!) .
- The applicable minimum daily wage for a skilled worker in Gujarat in 2012 was Rs.227.85, leading to a monthly income approximation of Rs.6,836 (!) .
- The court emphasized that compensation for minors should not be equated with that of non-earning adults and should reflect minimum wages, considering the child's non-earning status at the time of injury (!) .
- The calculation of future earnings and compensation should incorporate the child's disability, with a suitable multiplier applied to the annual income, adjusted for future prospects and disability percentage (!) (!) (!) .
- The finalized calculation resulted in a total compensation of Rs.35,90,489, which significantly exceeds the amounts awarded by the lower courts (!) (!) .
- The court highlighted the importance of courts and tribunals staying updated with legal principles and ensuring their judgments align with established law to prevent unnecessary appeals (!) (!) .
- The order directs that in cases where income details are not properly established, insurance companies or contesting parties must furnish the applicable minimum wages to the tribunal (!) .
- The appeal is allowed, and the original award is modified to reflect the recalculated compensation, with interest to be paid at 9% from the date of the claim petition (!) .
- The court also mandates the immediate remittance of the awarded amount into the appellant's bank account, with details to be provided by the appellant's counsel, to be completed before a specified deadline (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal guidance.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Challenge against inadequate compensation — Specifically, failure to award loss of earnings for a minor and insufficient pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. (Para 7 )
3. Minor children cannot be treated as non-earning individuals; compensation for loss of income must be based on minimum wages of a skilled workman. (Para 9 , 10 , 14 , 15 )
4. For minors suffering permanent disability in motor accidents, loss of income must be computed using the minimum wages of a skilled workman in the respective State. (Para 9 , 15 )
5. Appeal allowed — Compensation enhanced and modified — Insurance companies directed to furnish minimum wage data where income is not established. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 )
6. How is the income of a minor child determined for compensation in motor vehicle accident cases?
A minor child cannot be categorized as a non-earning individual. Compensation for loss of income must be calculated by adopting, at minimum, the minimum wages payable to a skilled workman as notified in the respective State for the relevant period. (Para 9 , 15 )
7. Who is responsible for providing minimum wage data if the claimant fails to furnish income details?
In cases where the claimant fails to provide appropriate income details or proof, it is the responsibility and obligation of the contesting party, particularly the insurance company, to furnish the applicable minimum wage issued by the government. (Para 16 )
8. How is permanent functional disability factored into the calculation of future earnings for a minor?
The court determines monthly income based on skilled minimum wages, adds future prospects, applies the appropriate multiplier, and then calculates the loss of future earnings by applying the percentage of permanent functional disability to that total. (Para 11 , 13 )
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 compensation under pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
9. On the aspect of monthly income of the minor appellant, we are inclined to interfere with the judgment and order of the Courts below. In the present case, it is evident that the Courts below have failed to take into account the monthl
