In cases of permanent disability of a minor in motor accidents, compensation must be 'just' and 'reasonable,' accounting for life-long medical needs, future prospects, loss of amenities, and marriage prospects, rather than relying on narrow or meager notional income assessments.

JUDGMENT

1. This Memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the MV Act’) assailing the order passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum – II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad in MVOP.No.1424 of 2016 dated 28.04.2018.

2. Appellant is the petitioner and respondents are the respondents in MVOP.No.1424 of 2016.

3. Notice got issued to respondent No.1 in the appeal is served but none appeared for him.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant – petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal has wrongly taken the earnings of the appellant - petitioner on lower side, wrongly fixed the income at Rs.3,000/- per month without any basis and awarded less compensation to the appellant - petitioner under different heads. The learned Tribunal has not taken into consideration that artificial legs have to be changed for every two to three years and accordingly the price would be increased, also failed to award compensation towards loss of academic career, education which cannot be measured in terms of money. Counsel to substantiate his contention has relied on the following judgments (i) R.D.Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Private Limited and others¹1995 ACJ 366, (ii) Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh and others²2003 ACJ 12, (iii) Govind Yadav vs. New India Assurance Company Limited³2012 ACJ 28, (iv) Hem Raj vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others⁴2018 ACJ 5, (v) Ramla and Others vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others ⁵2019 ACJ 559, (vi) Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand and others ⁶2020 ACJ 1042, (vii) Rahul Sharma and another Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others⁷2021 ACJ 1430, (viii) G.Vivek vs. National Insurance Company Limited and another ⁸2023 ACJ 585, (ix) K.S.Muralidhar vs. R.Subbulakshmi and another⁹2024 SCC Online SC 3385, (x) Prakash Chand Sharma vs. Rambabu Saini and another¹⁰2025 SCC Online SC 276, (xi) Sudheesh M. vs. M.K. Purushottaman and others ¹¹2025 ACJ 2843, (xii) Reliance General Insurance Limited, Visakhapatnam Vs. Ponga Geetha and Others ¹²2024 (5) ALD 679 (AP) (DB) and (xiii) Jyothis Raj Krishna vs. Sunny George and another¹³2025 ACJ 53 and prayed to enhance the compensation.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the learned Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the appellant – petitioner, awarded just compensation, no interference is called for and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant – petitioner has filed synopsis and calculation memo showing the enhancement of compensation under different heads.

7. Heard counsels on record and perused the material.

8. Now the points for consideration are:

(i) Whether the appellant - petitioner was awarded just compensation? if so,

(ii) Whether the award passed by the learned Tribunal suffers from any perversity or illegality, if so, does it require interference of this Court?

POINT NOs.1 and 2:

9. Appellant – petitioner has challenged the quantum in the appeal.

10. Appellant - petitioner has filed claim petition under Sections 140 and 166 of the MV Act read with Rule 455 of MV rules, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of accident till the date of realization against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally.

11. Appellant - petitioner being a minor is represented by his mother and natural guardian Ch.Sandhya Rani. Mother of the appellant - petitioner is examined as PW1, examined PW2 - Dr.C.Pradeechandra, PW3 - Binod Kumar Swain and got marked Exs.A1