HITESH NAGJIBHAI PATELversusBABABHAI NAGJIBHAI RABARI & ANR.

         [2025] 8 S.C.R. 2428 : 2025 INSC 1070

               Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel
                          v.
           Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Anr.
               (Civil Appeal No. 10278 of 2025)
                         08 August 2025
  [Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.]


                     Issue for Consideration
Issue arose whether the courts below failed to award compensation
under the head loss of earnings to the minor appellant; and
whether the High Court erred in granting an adequate amount
of compensation under pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.

                            Headnotes†
Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 – Compensation – Enhancement –
Appellant-minor aged 8 years suffered permanent disability in
a road accident – Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 3.90
lakh – High Court enhanced it to Rs. 8.65 lakhs – Interference:
Held: 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 assessing the amount of compensation –
In such a case, the computation of compensation under the head of
loss of income ought to be made by adopting, the minimum wages
payable to a skilled workman as notified for the relevant period in
the respective State where the cause of action arises – Prevailing
minimum wages, for the skilled ones, in the year of accident-2012,
in Gujarat would be Rs.227.85p. per day, thus, the income of the
appellant is determined as Rs.6,836 per month, rounding off – As
regards the assessment of disability suffered by the appellant, taking
into account the direct correlation between the injuries sustained
and the consequent loss of permanent functional disability suffered
by the appellant, the finding of the High Court that the permanent
functional disability stands rightly fixed at 90% – To award just
and fair compensation, the compensation towards other pecuniary
heads enhanced in accordance with the settled principle of law –
On basis thereof, compensation enhanced to Rs.35,90,489/-,
with interest @ 9% pa on the amount to be paid, from the date of
filing of the claim petition – Impugned award passed by the High
Court stands modified – Since the law had been amply clarified
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                            2429

      Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Anr.


     well before the order of the tribunal was made, by this Court in
     Kajal’s case, the appeals to the High Court as well as to this
     Court were entirely avoidable – Both the Courts duty-bound to
     keep abreast with the law as clarified by this Court, ensuring that
     the judgments and orders passed by them are entirely in order
     therewith – Furthermore, Insurance company/contesting party to
     furnish before the tribunal the schedule of minimum wages payable
     to a skilled worker, in cases where the income of the claimant/
     deceased not been properly established – Precedent. [Paras 9-18]

                              Case Law Cited
     Kajal v. Jagdish Chand [2020] 3 SCR 622 : (2020) 4 SCC 413 –
     relied on.
     Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company
     Limited and Anr. [2013] 8 SCR 268 : (2014) 14 SCC 396; Kajal v.
     Jagdish Chand and Ors. [2020] 3 SCR 622 : (2020) 4 SCC 413;
     Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Anr., 2024 SCC
     OnLine SC 3692; Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon
     and Another (2022) 7 SCC 738; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
     Pranay Sethi [2017] 13 SCR 100 : (2017) 16 SCC 680; Mohd.
     Sabeer v. U.P SRTC [2022] 18 SCR 427 : (2023) 20 SCC 774;
     Sidram v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Ltd. [2022] 8
     SCR 403 : (2023) 3 SCC 439; Sanjay Rajpoot v. Ram Singh,
     2025 SCC OnLine SC 285; Mallikarjun v. National Insurance Co.
     Ltd. [2013] 8 SCR 268 : (2014) 14 SCC 396; Ayush v. Reliance
     General Insurance Co. Ltd. [2022] 1 SCR 831 : (2022) 7 SCC
     738 – referred to.

                                List of Acts
     Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.

                             List of Keywords
     Compensation; Loss of earnings; Adequate amount of compensation;
     Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages; Permanent disability;
     Monthly income; Quantum of compensation; Death or permanent
     disability; Motor vehicle accident; Minimum wages; Skilled
     workman; Cause of action; Grievous and life-altering injuries; Brain
     haemorrhage; Amputation of the lower limb; Disability certificate;
     Permanent functional disability; Just and fair compensation;
     Pecuniary heads; Insurance company.
2430                                                        [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


                              Case Arising From
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10278 of 2025
     From the Judgment and Order dated 20.08.2024 of the High Court
     of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in FA No. 4863 of 2022

                            Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Appellant:
     Udian Sharma, Sahil Saraswat, Manav Mitra, Vishesh Sapra, Mrs.
     Harsha Sadhwani.
     Advs. for the Respondents:
     Ms. Awantika Manohar, Ms. Parul Dhurvey, Aman Kr Pandey.

                 Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                    Order

        Time taken for          Time taken for        Time taken for
        disposal of the         disposal of the       disposal of the
        claim petition by       appeal by the High    appeal in this Court
        MACT                    Court
        8 years 3 months        2 years 6 months      5 months 6 days

     Leave granted.
2.   By way of the present appeal, the claimant-appellant challenges the
     Judgment and Order of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad
     passed on 20th August 2024, in R/First Appeal No.4863 of 2022,
     which, in turn, was preferred against the order dated 17th September
     2021 in M.A.C.P. No.87 of 2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
     Tribunal (Auxi) & 3rd Additional District Judge – Banaskantha at Deesa.
3.   On 14th October 2012, the minor appellant, namely, Hitesh Nagjibhai
     Patel aged 8 years, along with his father, was standing on a ‘kachcha’
     road, when the offending vehicle bearing registration No. GJ-8V-3085,
     driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit the appellant who was
     standing on the roadside. As a result of the incident, the appellant
     sustained severe injuries and thereby, suffered permanent disability.
     The appellant, through his father, filed a claim petition against the
     respondents herein under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act,
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                      2431

         Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Anr.


       19881, seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- before
       the Tribunal.
4.     The Tribunal, vide order dated 17th September 2021, while partly
       allowing the claim petition, held Respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly
       and severally liable to compensate the appellant with an amount of
       Rs.3,90,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of
       the claim petition. The Tribunal, by taking the view of the evidence
       on record, considered the permanent disability of the appellant at
       30% and awarded an amount under the following heads :

                            HEADS                 AMOUNT
                Pain and Suffering              Rs.3,00,000/-
                Loss of Earning of Parents       Rs.30,000/-
                Medical Expenses                 Rs.30,000/-
                Future Medical Expenses          Rs.30,000/-
                            Total               Rs.3,90,000/-

5.     Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the appellant approached
       the High Court by way of appeal under Section 173 of the Act,
       seeking an enhancement of the compensation amount. The High
       Court, vide the impugned judgment, allowed the appeal and enhanced
       the compensation amount by Rs.4,75,000/-, thus making the total
       compensation payable as Rs.8,65,000/- along with interest @ 9%
       per annum on the enhanced amount. The Court considered that the
       appellant suffered a permanent physical impairment/mental disability
       to the tune of 70% and, therefore, assessed the total permanent
       disability to the extent of 90%.
6.     In view of the decision rendered by this Court in Mallikarjun v.
       Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and
       Anr.2, the High Court modified the award rendered by the Tribunal
       and enhanced the compensation by Rs.4,75,000/-, in the following
       manner :




1    For Short “the Act”.
2    (2014) 14 SCC 396.
2432                                                          [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                               Supreme Court Reports



               S. No.           PARTICULARS              AMOUNT
                  1.     Loss of amenities in life on   Rs.5,00,000/-
                         account of disability
                  2.     Pain and Suffering             Rs.75,000/-
                  3.     Loss of earnings to parents    Rs.30,000/-
                  4.     Future medical expenses        Rs.30,000/-
                  5.     Medical Bills                  Rs.30,000/-
                  6.     Artificial Limb                Rs.2,00,000/-
                                     Total              Rs.8,65,000/-

7.    Dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the Courts below,
      the appellant is now before us. The point of challenge taken is that
      the Courts below failed to award compensation under the head loss
      of earnings to the minor appellant. Further, the High Court erred in
      granting an adequate amount of compensation under pecuniary and
      non-pecuniary damages.
8.    We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
9.    On the aspect of monthly income of the minor appellant, we are
      inclined to interfere with the judgment 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
      head 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. The said observation was rendered by this Court, in
      Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and Ors.3, and Baby Sakshi Greola v.
      Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Anr.4.


3    (2020) 4 SCC 413
4    2024 SCC OnLine SC 3692
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                      2433

      Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Anr.


10. Adverting to the facts at hand, the appellant was an 8-year-old child
    at the time of the accident. In view of the above exposition of law, we
    must advert to the prevailing minimum wages, which for the skilled
    ones, as in the year of accident, i.e., 2012, in Gujarat would be
    Rs.227.85p. per day, therefore, in the interest of justice, we deem it
    appropriate to determine the income of the appellant as Rs.6,835.5p.
    per month, rounding off to Rs.6,836/- per month.
11. Coming to the assessment of disability suffered by the appellant, he
    sustained grievous and life-altering injuries on the head and left leg,
    resulting in a brain haemorrhage and amputation of the left lower
    limb. Upon examination of the disability certificate and other medical
    documents, as also considering the nature, extent and impact of
    the injuries, the High Court in para 6.4 of the impugned judgment,
    quantified the permanent functional disability of the appellant at
    90%. Taking into account the direct correlation between the injuries
    sustained and the consequent loss of permanent functional disability
    suffered by the appellant, we are in agreement with the finding of
    the High Court that the permanent functional disability stands rightly
    fixed at 90%.
12. Lastly, with a view of awarding just and fair compensation, in the
    attending facts and circumstances of the case, we are also inclined
    to enhance the compensation towards other pecuniary heads in
    accordance with the settled principle of law.
13. In view of the aforesaid, the compensation now payable to the
    claimant-appellant would be recalculated as under:


                    CALCULATION OF COMPENSATION

       Compensation           Amount             In Accordance with:
          Heads               Awarded
      Monthly Income         Rs.6,836/-       Baby Sakshi Greola v.
                                              Manzoor Ahmad Simon
                                              and Another,
      Yearly Income          Rs.82,032/-          (2022) 7 SCC 738
                                                       Para 10
2434                                                           [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                             Supreme Court Reports



        Future Prospects      82,032 + 32,813
        (40%)                 = Rs.1,14,845/-      National Insurance Co.
                                                    Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi
        Multiplier (18)       Rs.1,14,845/- X        (2017) 16 SCC 680
                                    18                 Para 42 and 59
                              = Rs.20,67,210/-
        Permanent                 90% of            Mohd. Sabeer v. U.P.
        Disability (90%)       Rs.20,67,210/-              SRTC,
                              = Rs.18,60,489/-       (2023) 20 SCC 774
                                                         Para 12-15
        Loss of Income/
        Future Earnings                        Rs.18,60,489/-
        due to Disability
        Medical                 Rs.30,000/-          Sidram v. Divisional
        Expenses                                    Manager, United India
                                                        Insurance Ltd.
        Future Medical          Rs.50,000/-
                                                      (2023) 3 SCC 439
        Expenses
                                                        Para 63-66, 89
        Special diet and       Rs.1,00,000/-
        Transportation                             Kajal v. Jagdish Chand,
                                                      (2020) 4 SCC 413
        Loss of Marriage       Rs.3,00,000/-         Para 19, 26, 28, 29
        Prospects
                                                   Sanjay Rajpoot v. Ram
        Loss of Income          Rs.50,000/-                Singh,
        during treatment                            2025 SCC OnLine SC
        Pain and               Rs.5,00,000/-            285, Para 12
        Suffering                                   Mallikarjun v. National
        Loss of                Rs.2,00,000/-         Insurance Co. Ltd.,
        Amenities                                     (2014) 14 SCC 396
                                                     Para 13 Para 12-15
        Cost of Artificial     Rs.5,00,000/-         Ayush v. Reliance
        Limb                                       General Insurance Co.
                                                            Ltd.,
                                                     (2022) 7 SCC 738
                                                        Para 14-15
             TOTAL                             Rs.35,90,489/-
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                       2435

      Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Anr.


           Thus, the difference in compensation is as under :

              MACT                High Court              This Court
          Rs.3,90,000/-           Rs.8,65,000/-          Rs.35,90,489/-

14. As can be seen, there is a great difference between the compensation
    as awarded by the Courts below and the compensation payable
    as per law. We are constraint to observe that appeals to the High
    Court as well as to this Court were entirely avoidable, since the
    law had been amply clarified well before the order of the Tribunal
    was made on 17.10.2021 by way of the judgment rendered by this
    Court in Kajal (supra) decided on 05.02.2020. Both the Courts were
    duty-bound to keep abreast with the law as clarified by this Court,
    ensuring that the judgments and orders passed by them are entirely
    in order therewith.
15. For the purpose of emphasis, it is again clarified here that when a
    Tribunal or the High Court in appeal, is concerned with the case
    involving a child having suffered injury or having passed away, the
    calculation of loss of income necessarily has to be made on the
    matric of minimum wages payable to a skilled worker in the respective
    State at the relevant point of time. It is our hope that this restatement
    helps avoiding such errors and thereby obviates the necessity of
    this Court’s interference, applying well-established principles of law.
16. We may also observe that, in general, i.e., accidents involving adults,
    we are often confronted with situations where the Minimum Wage
    Data is not readily available and every so often, the question that
    has been made up to this Court hinges only on the calculation of
    income. In that view of the matter and in the hope of reducing the
    claimants need to file appeals to this Court or even the High Court,
    we deem it appropriate to direct that in cases where the claimant
    has failed to furnish appropriate details of income or adequate proof
    thereof, it shall be the responsibility and obligation of the contesting
    party, more particularly the insurance company to furnish before
    the Tribunal the applicable minimum wage as duly issued by the
    concerned government.
17. The Civil Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. The impugned
    Award dated 17th September 2021 in M.A.C.P. No.87 of 2017 passed
    by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi) & 3rd Additional District
2436                                                         [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                             Supreme Court Reports


     Judge – Banaskantha at Deesa, as modified by the High Court of
     Gujarat at Ahmedabad, vide the impugned order dated 20th August
     2024, passed in R/First Appeal No.4863 of 2022 stands modified
     accordingly. Interest on the amount is to be paid, as awarded by
     the Tribunal, i.e., @ 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the
     claim petition.
18. In so far as the direction issued regarding the furnishing of the
    schedule of minimum wages by the insurance company in cases
    where the income of the claimant/deceased has not been properly
    established, let a copy of this order be sent by the Registrar Judicial
    of this Court to the learned Registrar Generals of the High Courts,
    who shall ensure that the a copy of this order is sent to all Motor
    Accident Claims Tribunals, to see that the direction is followed strictly.
19. The amount be directly remitted into the bank account of the appellant.
    The particulars of the bank account are to be immediately supplied
    by the learned counsel for the appellant to the learned counsel
    for the respondent. The amount be remitted positively before 30th
    September, 2025.
     Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

     Result of the case: Appeal allowed.




     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain