[2026:RJ-JP:8596]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 186/2019 Shanti D/o Shri Panchu Lal, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Makhupura District Ajmer (Raj)

----Appellant Versus

1. Sohan @ Sohan Khan S/o Shri Mishriji, R/o Village Somalpur District Ajmer (Driver Of The Motorcycle No. Rj-

01-15M-2182)

2. Ramjan S/o Shri Banna, R/o Village Somalpur Hmt.

District Ajmer (Owner Of The Motorcycle No. Rj-01-15M-

2182)

3. United India Insurnace Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Office At Ajmer Road Beawar Ajmer (Raj) Having Its Regional Office At Sahara Chambers Tonk Road Jaipur (Insurer Of The Motorcycle No. Rj-01-15M-2182)

----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr.Jai Prakash Gupta with Mr.Udai Jeet Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : Ms.Shraya Khandal for Mr.Satish Kumar Khandal JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

24/02/2026

1. The instant appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and award dated 04.10.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ajmer (for short, “the Tribunal”) in Claim Case No.155/2007 by which the claim petition submitted by the claimant-appellant (hereinafter referred to as “the claimant”) has been partly allowed and the respondents have been directed to pay a compensation amount of Rs.1,12,282/- to the claimant along-with interest.

2. Learned counsel for the claimant submits that the claimant met with an accident on 20.02.2005 and the same was caused by the driver of motorcycle bearing No.RJ01-15M-2182, i.e., respondent No.1, by driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.

3. Counsel submits that at the time of accident, the age of the claimant was 14 years and she has sustained 50% permanent disability, but not a single penny has been awarded by the Tribunal under the head of Loss of Income. Counsel submits that in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hitesh Nagjibai Patel Vs. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Anr. reported in 2025 INSC 1070, in the case of injury claim of a minor child, the computation of compensation under the head of Loss of Income ought to be made by adopting the formula of payment of minimum wages of a skilled labour as notified at the relevant period in the respective state.

4. Counsel submits that the accident has occurred in the year 2005 and at the relevant time, the daily wages of skilled labour was Rs.81 per day. Counsel further submits that even under the head of Loss of Future Prospects, not a single penny has been awarded by the Tribunal, hence, under these circumstances, the impugned judgment and award needs suitable enhancement.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-insurance company opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the claimant and submits that not a single document has been placed on the record before the Tribunal to show that the claimant was engaged in any work as a daily wager or that she was a skilled workman, therefore, no loss of income has been suffered by the claimant, hence, under these circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in not granting any amount to the claimant under this head and the award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper, which does not require any interference of this Court and the instant appeal is liable to be rejected.

6. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record.

7. Perusal of the record indicates that when the accident occurred, the age of the claimant was 14 years and this fact is not in dispute that on account of the injuries sustained by her in the accident, she has suffered 50% permanent disability. This fact is also not in dispute that not a single penny has been awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant under the head of loss of income, looking to the age of the claimant, i.e., 14 years by holding that she was a minor at the time of the accident, hence, she has not suffered any loss of income. Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hitesh Nagjibai