Multiplier of 18 is appropriate for determining just compensation in motor accident claims involving minors and permanent disability.

On December 5, 2017, the original claimant, a 13-year-old minor, sustained grievous injuries when a luxury bus (Reg. No. GJ-03-W-9841) driven in a rash and negligent manner collided with the bus (Reg. No. GJ-14-X-3222) in which he was traveling.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Anand, held both drivers equally negligent and awarded compensation in MAC Petition No. 701 of 2017.

The National Insurance Company appealed, specifically challenging the Tribunal's application of a multiplier of 18 instead of 15, given the claimant’s age.

1. Whether the Tribunal committed a legal error by applying a multiplier of 18 instead of 15 for a 13-year-old injured claimant.

2. Whether the compensation awarded qualifies as "just compensation" in light of the minor’s permanent disability and future deprivation.

The Court primarily applied the principles of "just compensation" for minors under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

It relied on Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2009 (6) SCC 121] and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017 ACJ 2700] regarding standard multiplier methods.

Crucially, for cases involving minor victims with permanent disability, the Court followed Kajal v. Jagdish Chand [(2020) 4 SCC 413] and Master Ayush v. Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2022) 7 SCC 738], which establish that the multiplier of 18 is appropriate for minors to ensure compensation is not merely "token" but substantial enough to cover a lifetime of deprivation.

The appellant argued that based on Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan, the multiplier for a 13-year-old should be 15.

However, the High Court observed that in cases of child victims suffering permanent disability, the Supreme Court in Kajal and Master Ayush specifically approved the use of a multiplier of 18.

The Court reasoned that human suffering cannot be equated purely with money, and for a minor facing lifelong consequences, the Tribunal must adopt a liberal and sensitive approach rather than a conservative one.

The Court determined that the decision in Miss Rushi @ Ruchi Thapa (cited by the appellant) was distinguishable as it did not focus on the specific application of the multiplier in the context of the Kajal precedent.

The Court affirmed that it is the duty of the Tribunal to award "just compensation" that accounts for mental agony, loss of amenities, and the lifelong impact of disability on a minor.

The appeal was dismissed, and the original judgment and award dated September 14, 2022, were upheld.

All pending civil applications were disposed of accordingly.