Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.K. MAHESHWARI, ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.
Hansraj – Appellant
Versus
Mukesh Nath And Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. of 2026 (@ SLP (C) No. 13122 of 2024)
Decided On : 06-05-2026
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Sections 168 and 173 – 100% permanent disability suffered on account of motor accident – Compensation of Rs.7,76,543/- awarded by Claims Tribunal, subsequently, enhanced to Rs.12,17,543/- by High Court in appeal – Amount of compensation as awarded by High Court deserves enhancement – Appellant was aged fourteen years when accident took place and as a result of same has suffered 100% permanent disability – High Court has considered notional annual income as Rs.30,000/- – This amount is on a lower side – Notional income would have to be determined on the basis of minimum wages admissible for a skilled workman in State of Rajasthan in 2016 – Such minimum wages were Rs.5,746/- per month – Appellant having suffered permanent disability, he would require assistance of two attendants round clock – Total amount of compensation now admissible would be Rs.56,83,663/- by applying Multiplier of 18, alongwith 6%. (Paras 9, 10 and 11)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal has been preferred by claimant who is not satisfied with partial enhancement in amount of compensation as awarded by Single Judge of Rajasthan High Court1 pursuant to judgment dated 09.04.2024 in S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1334 of 2022.
Findings of Court:
The amounts already paid shall be taken into consideration. As regards attendant charges of Rs.21,60,000/-, 25% of this amount shall be immediately released in favour of appellant. Remaining 75% amount shall stand invested in a fixed deposit account to enable future attendant charges being met herein after. Annually, amount of Rs.1,50,000/- shall be released in favour of appellant so that balance amount continues to earn interest.
Result : Civil Appeal allowed.
Key Points: - The notional annual income should be determined based on minimum wages admissible for a skilled workman in Rajasthan in 2016 (Rs.5,746 per month; Rs.69,600 per year), with future prospects at 40% and a multiplier of 18, resulting in loss of income Rs.17,53,920/-. (!) - Attendant charges should be calculated based on minimum wages admissible (Rs.5,000 per month for a semi-skilled worker) for two attendants round the clock, resulting in Rs.21,60,000/-, and part invested in fixed deposit for future needs; annual withdrawal of Rs.1,50,000 for ongoing costs. (!) (!) (!) - Final compensation entitlement after enhancement is Rs.56,83,663/- with 6% interest from the date of filing; 25% of attendant charges to be released immediately and 75% invested, with annual Rs.1,50,000 for future attendant costs. (!) (!) (!) (!)
JUDGMENT
ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal has been preferred by the claimant who is not satisfied with the partial enhancement in the amount of compensation as awarded by the learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court1[In short, “the High Court”] pursuant to the judgment dated 09.04.2024 in S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1334 of 2022.
3. According to the appellant, on 08.11.2016 he alongwith his friend were riding on a motorcycle on Mundoita Kalawar Road. The appellant was aged about fourteen years and was a pillion rider. The first respondent drove the motorcycle in a negligent manner due to which the motorcycle hit the rear portion of a tractor trolley. The appellant fell down and suffered grievous injuries on his neck, head, backbone and also suffered fractures. As a result of the said accident, the appellant was required to be hospitalized for about 203 days. He suffered 100% permanent disability on account of the said accident. He, therefore, preferred a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 19882[For short, ‘the said Act’] seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.22,45,000/- before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal3[For short, ‘the Claims Tribunal’]. Since the said motorcycle was owned by the second respondent and was insured with the third respondent, the claim for compensation was made against all of them.
4. The driver of the motorcycle as well as its owner did not file their written statements and were accordingly proceeded against ex parte. On behalf of the third respondent - Insurance Company, written statement was filed denying the claim as made. Before the Claims Tribunal, the appellant examined his father – Pawan Kumar and another witness, Kamlesh Kumar Sharma. On behalf of the Insurance Company, Hiralal Bambi came to be examined. The learned Judge of the Claims Tribunal after considering the entire material on record and after appreciating the evidence led by the parties was pleased to award compensation of an amount of Rs.7,76,543/- in the following manner:-
| 1 | In the Head of loss of income | Rs.4,80,000/- |
| 2 | Medical expenses | Rs.49,743/- |
| 3 | Attendant expense | Rs.1,21,800/- |
| 4 | In the Head of Surgery | Rs.5,000/- |
| 5 | In the Head of transportation | Rs.10,000/- |
| 6 | In the Head of Nutrition | Rs.10,000/- |
| 7 | Bodily, mental agony | Rs.1,00,000/- |
|
| Total | Rs.7,76,543/- |
5. The appellant not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal preferred an appeal under Section 173 of the said Act. The Insurance Company did not challenge the findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal as regards its liability to satisfy the claim for compensation. As a result, the said findings became final. The High Court, thus, considered the prayer for enhancement in the amount of compensation. While partly allowing the appeal, the High Court enhanced the amount of compensation in the following manner:-
| Annual Income | Rs.30,000/- |
| Loss of Income viz-a-viz 100% permanent disability | Rs.30,000 x 100% = Rs.30,000/- |
| According to the age of the claimant, Multiplier of 18 shall be applied | Rs.30,000 x 18 =5,40,000/- |
| Future Prospects (40% of the claimant’s income) | Rs.5,40,000 x 40% =2,16,000/- (5,40,000+2,16,000=7,56,000/- |
| Medical Bills | Rs.49,743/- |
| Attendant Charges | Rs.1,21,800/- |
| Under the head of Operation | Rs.20,000/- |
| Transportation | Rs.10,000/- |
| Nutritional diet | Rs.10,000/- |
| Mental Agony | Rs.1,00,000/- |
| Loss of marriage prospects | Rs.1,00,000/- |
| Future medical treatment | Rs.50,000/- |
| Total | Rs.12,17,543/- |
| Less amount awarded by the Tribunal | Rs.7,76,543/- |
| Enhanced |
Injury in motor accident – Notional income would have to be determined on the basis of minimum wages admissible for a skilled workman.
In cases of total permanent disability involving a minor, compensation must be calculated using minimum wage rates for skilled and semi-skilled labor, incorporating future prospects and the necessity....
The court ruled that the compensation for personal injuries must adequately reflect the nature of the injuries, with adjustments for future medical expenses and functional disability considered essen....
Compensation for personal injury must be just and reasonable, reflecting the claimant's suffering and loss, with the court emphasizing the inadequacy of the Tribunal's award.
Court emphasized proper assessment of income and disability in compensation calculations for personal injuries.
In motor accident claims, appellate courts must re-evaluate the quantum of compensation to ensure it is just and reasonable by rectifying errors in the determination of notional income, application o....
Compensation for accident injuries must account for all damages, including permanent disability and future prospects.
Compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act must be just and reasonable, reflecting the claimant's actual loss, including permanent disability and income loss.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
