Tribunals must independently assess permanent functional disability and provide holistic, equitable compensation, disregarding procedural consent memoranda that inadequately reflect the severity of life-altering, permanent injuries sustained by minors.

JUDGMENT :

NISHA M. THAKORE, J.

1. Heard Ms. Sini Shukla, learned advocate with Mr. Shushil Shukla, learned advocate for the appellant. Ms. Mausami Nanavati, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate for the respondent no.3- Insurance Company. Despite the service of notice of rule upon the respondent nos. 1 and 2 who are driver and owner of the offending vehicle, they have chosen not to enter appearance or contest the present appeal. With the able assistance of the learned advocates on record, the appeal is finally heard. Considering the grounds raised in the appeal and submissions made by the learned advocate for the original claimant, this Court vide order dated 15.09.2015 had admitted the appeal.

2. The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act,1988 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1988”) at the instance of the original claimant being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 20th February 2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Main) Kheda at Nadiad in MACP No.89 of 2007. By the said judgment and award, the Tribunal has though partly allowed the claim petition preferred by the original claimant under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 holding him entitled to seek recovery of compensation of Rs.1,32,500/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of filing of claim petition till its actual realization from the original opponents No.1 to 3, jointly and severally, however has not entertained the claim of entire compensation of Rs.3,50,000/-. Hence, the present appeal, praying for enhancement of additional amount of compensation of Rs.2 lakhs with proportionate cost and interest.

3. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment and award mainly on the ground of quantum of compensation by submitting that the Tribunal committed grave error in determining the notional income of the injured claimant who was aged 13 years at the time of accident. Inviting my attention to the findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal, learned advocate has submitted that even in cases of minor injured claimant, the law as settled by the various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is to follow the yardstick of minimum wages for the purpose of determination of just and fair amount of compensation. The reliance was placed on the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh Nanjibhai Patel versus Motibhai Nanjibhai Rabari reported in 2025 (4) GLH 470. My attention was invited to the facts of the case involved, it was pointed out that it was a case of eight year old child having suffered amputation of left lower limb along with life altering injuries sustained on the head and left leg which had caused brain hemorrhage. The disability certificate and other medical documents were taken into consideration by the High Court whereby the permanent functional disability of the claimant was quantified as 90%. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the appeal preferred by the original claimant had confirmed the aforesaid permanent functional disability of 90% in the facts of the case by observing that such injuries had a direct co-relation and the consequent loss of permanent functional disability suffered by the claimant. Learned advocate had therefore submitted that in the present case also the claimant being an injured minor having suffered amputation of left leg below knee and cons