A minor child suffering permanent disability in a motor vehicle accident cannot be treated as a non-earning individual; compensation for loss of future earning capacity must be based on notional income, such as minimum wages for a skilled workman.

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.06.2024 PASSED IN MVC NO. 5858/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE XIX ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU SCCH-17 PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION BARRED BY TIME.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard the arguments of both the sides.

2. This appeal is filed against the judgment and award passed in M.V.C.No.5858/2022 dated 04.06.2024 by the Court of Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Member, MACT, XIX Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru City, SCCH-17.

3. Injured claimant, who is aged 12 years has met with an accident on 05.09.2022 and his father as a natural guardian filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. Tribunal after considering the entire evidence on record has granted an amount of Rs.4,41,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from date of petition till its realization.

4. Aggrieved by the said award, he preferred an appeal and mainly contended that she sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized for a period of 09 days. He also examined PW.2-doctor and he assessed the disability of 54% to the lower limb and 18% to the whole body. But the Tribunal has relied upon the case of Mallikarjun V. S. DIVNL. MGR. National Ins. Co. Ltd. & Anr. reported in (2014) 14 SCC 396 and granted meagre compensations, and thus, he requested for enhancement of the compensation.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment in the case of Hitesh Nagjibhai Rabari V. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari and Another reported in 2025 ACJ 1986, at paragraph No.9 has held as follows:

“9. On the aspect of monthly income of the minor appellant, we are inclined to interfere with the judgement and order of the courts below. In the present case, it is evident that the courts below have failed to take into account the monthly income of the appellant while determining the quantum of compensation. It is now a well-entrenched and consistently reiterated principle of law that a minor child who suffers death or permanent disability in a motor vehicle accident, cannot be placed in the same category as a non-earning individual for the purposes of assessing the amount of compensation because the child was not engaged in gainful employment at the time of the accident. In such a case, the computation of compensation under the held of loss of income ought to be made by adopting, at the very least, the minimum wages payable to a skilled workman as notified for the relevant period in the respective State where the cause of action arises.”

6. Learned counsel for the respondent stated that as per the medical evidence, he sustained permanent disability at 54%. Therefore, he is entitled for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- compensation as per the citation of Mallikarjun (Supra).

7. Considering the age of the victim girl and also the nature of injuries sustained by her, this Court finds it reasonable to take her notional income as Rs.15,500/- as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, and the multiplier is to be taken as ‘15’.

8. The petitioner examined the Professor of Orthopaedics at SITO, Bengaluru as PW.2. He stated that the petitioner has sustained the following injuries:

1. Bimalleolar fracture (R) Ankle X-ray of the part was taken, POP Slab was applied and the patient was prepared for surgery. Then on 09.09.2022 under spinal Anaesthe