01Facts
The claimant, aged 13, sustained a compound distal femur fracture and a fracture of both bones of the right leg in a road traffic accident on 29 March 2024.
pp. 3–5 · ¶ 1–5The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded him ₹3,25,400, including ₹3,00,000 for pain and suffering, but did not award compensation for loss of future income due to disability.
pp. 3–5 · ¶ 1–5The claimant appealed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement.
pp. 3–5 · ¶ 1–5The doctor assessed disability at 66% to the right lower limb and 33% to the whole body.
p. 5 · ¶ 702Issues
i.1. Whether the Tribunal’s award should be enhanced to include compensation for the minor claimant’s loss of future income due to disability.
pp. 5–7 · ¶ 7, 10–11ii.2. Whether the compensation awarded under other heads should be revised in light of the claimant’s injuries, age and hospitalisation.
pp. 7–9 · ¶ 12–1503Law Applied
Under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, an aggrieved claimant may appeal an award of the Claims Tribunal.
pp. 5–7 · ¶ 7, 10Relying on Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Anr., (2025) INSC 1070, the Court applied the principle that, in a minor’s injury claim, minimum wages may be taken as the income for calculating compensation, including loss of future income due to disability.
pp. 5–7 · ¶ 7, 10The Court used the applicable multiplier of 15 and added 40% future prospects because the disability taken into account exceeded 20%.
p. 7 · ¶ 11The Tribunal had relied on Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., (2014) 14 SCC 396, in making its original award.
p. 5 · ¶ 7Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173
04Reasoning
The Court accepted ₹11,606 per month—the minimum wage for unskilled labour in Chittoor—as the claimant’s income and applied a multiplier of 15.
p. 7 · ¶ 10Although the doctor reported 66% disability to the right lower limb, the Court treated one-third of that figure, or 22%, as whole-body disability.
p. 7 · ¶ 11Applying 40% future prospects, it calculated loss of future income at ₹6,43,437.
p. 7 · ¶ 11It further assessed compensation for pain and suffering, loss of amenities, the parent’s loss of income during the laid-up period, medical expenses, and attendant, conveyance, food and nourishment charges, having regard to the injuries and six-day hospital stay.
pp. 8–9 · ¶ 12–1505Holding
The Court allowed the appeal in part and enhanced the total compensation from ₹3,25,400 to ₹8,13,049.
pp. 9–11 · ¶ 15–19It awarded an additional ₹4,87,649, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition until realisation, payable by the insurer within six weeks.
pp. 9–11 · ¶ 15–19The enhanced amount is to be placed in a fixed deposit in the minor claimant’s name until he attains majority; his mother may withdraw the interest quarterly for his expenses.
pp. 9–11 · ¶ 15–19Original Court PDF
MASTER A NARENDRA BABUvsSRI SHAIK PARVEZ AHMED
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
