### Minor sustained 16% disability; compensation enhanced to 3 Lakhs following Master Mallikarjun principles.

The appellant, a minor at the time, was a pillion rider on a motorcycle driven by respondent no. 1.

On April 28, 2017, due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 1, the motorcycle collided with an unknown four-wheeler, causing the appellant severe injuries resulting in 16% permanent disability.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi), Dahod at Limkheda, awarded a lump-sum compensation of ₹71,000/- in MACP No. 124 of 2018.

The Tribunal also deducted 20% of the compensation on the grounds of contributory negligence.

Dissatisfied with the quantum and the deduction, the claimant preferred this appeal.

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in awarding a lump-sum compensation of ₹71,000/- for a minor with 16% disability instead of following established judicial benchmarks.

2. Whether the rule of contributory negligence applies to a minor pillion rider in a case of composite negligence.

The court applied the precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Master Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, The National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2014) 14 SCC 396, which established a fixed slab system for compensation for children sustaining permanent disability: ₹3 lakhs for disability above 10% and up to 30%.

Regarding negligence, the court relied on Khenyei v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (2015) 9 SCC 273, which clarifies that a passenger or pillion rider in an accident involving multiple vehicles is a case of "composite negligence," allowing the claimant to recover 100% compensation from any of the joint tortfeasors.

The High Court observed that the factum of the accident and the 16% disability were undisputed.

Under the Master Mallikarjun guidelines, since the minor's disability fell within the 10%–30% bracket, the mandatory compensation for non-pecuniary heads (pain, suffering, loss of amenities) is ₹3,00,000/-, rendering the Tribunal’s award of ₹71,000/- legally insufficient.

Furthermore, the court found the Tribunal’s deduction of 20% for contributory negligence legally unsustainable.

As a pillion rider, the minor was a third party to the negligence of the drivers; the accident was a result of "composite negligence" between the two vehicles.

Therefore, the claimant has the right to recover the full amount from either tortfeasor, and inter-se liability between the vehicles does not permit a reduction in the claimant's award.

It held that the appellant is entitled to an enhanced compensation of ₹3,00,000/- (an addition of ₹2,29,000/-) with proportionate costs and interest.

The court set aside the 20% deduction, holding the respondents liable for 100% of the compensation.

Respondent No. 3 (Insurance Company) was directed to deposit the additional amount within four weeks.

The court kept it open for the Insurance Company to seek recovery against other tortfeasors if necessary.