01Facts
The claimant was 15 years old when he sustained a head injury in a road traffic accident on 12 January 2021.
pp. 2–4The Tribunal awarded him ₹5,41,705, including ₹4,00,000 for pain, suffering and disability-related loss of amenities, and ₹60,000 for attendant charges.
pp. 2–4Seeking enhancement, he appealed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
pp. 2–4The High Court considered the Tribunal’s award and the evidence concerning the claimant’s injuries and disability.
pp. 2–4, 5–702Issues
i.1. Whether the compensation awarded to the minor claimant required enhancement, particularly for loss of future income arising from disability.
pp. 4–7ii.2. Whether the amounts awarded under the other heads of compensation should be revised in light of the claimant’s injuries and recovery needs.
pp. 7–903Law Applied
The appeal was brought under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which provides for an appeal against a Claims Tribunal’s award.
p. 2The Court considered the Supreme Court’s decision in Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari and Another, 2025 INSC 1070, for assessing compensation in cases involving injury to a minor, including assessment of income, multiplier, disability and other heads of compensation.
pp. 4–5The Tribunal had relied on Master Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance.
p. 4For this claimant, the Court adopted ₹15,000 per month as income, equivalent to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority’s notional income for 2021 and, in the Court’s view, on par with the minimum wage of a skilled labourer; it applied 40% future prospects, 35% functional disability and a multiplier of 15.
pp. 5–7Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173
04Reasoning
The Court accepted the Tribunal’s assessment of functional disability at 35%, notwithstanding the doctor’s stated whole-body disability of 62%, because the claimant could perform daily activities with difficulty, had continued his studies, and the neuropsychologist who conducted the assessment had not testified.
pp. 5–6Applying the adopted monthly income, 40% future prospects and multiplier of 15, the Court calculated loss of future income at ₹13,23,000.
pp. 6–7It separately assessed pain and suffering at ₹80,000, loss of amenities at ₹60,000, a parent’s loss of income during the two-month laid-up period at ₹30,000, attendant and conveyance charges at ₹5,000, and medical expenses at ₹21,705.
pp. 7–805Holding
The Court partly allowed the appeal and enhanced the total compensation from ₹5,41,705 to ₹15,19,705.
pp. 8–9It awarded the claimant an additional ₹9,78,000, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition until realization, payable by the insurer.
pp. 8–9The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced amount with interest within six weeks; 25% of the enhancement was to be released to the claimant and 75% placed in a five-year fixed deposit in his name.
pp. 8–9Original Court PDF
KUMAR RAKESH LvsSRI. VIJAY KUMAR B
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
