Case Note & Summary
The appellant, father of a minor son (aged 17 years), filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation for injuries sustained by his son in a motor accident on 08.06.2017. The injured was riding a motorcycle when an Alto car driven rashly collided with him, causing serious head injury and fracture in the right leg. The Tribunal partly allowed the claim and awarded Rs. 1,06,000 as compensation. The appellant appealed under Section 173 of the Act seeking enhancement. The High Court held that the Tribunal erred in assessing the notional income of the minor at Rs. 3,000 per month without any basis, and instead fixed it at Rs. 15,000 per annum as per the Second Schedule. The court also held that the multiplier of 15 applied by the Tribunal was incorrect and should be 18 as per the Second Schedule. The compensation for pain, shock and suffering was enhanced from Rs. 25,000 to Rs. 50,000. The court upheld the Tribunal's assessment of 15% permanent disability and the award of Rs. 1,00,000 towards medical expenses. The total compensation was recalculated as follows: loss of future income (Rs. 15,000 x 18 x 15% = Rs. 40,500), pain, shock and suffering (Rs. 50,000), medical expenses (Rs. 1,00,000), and special diet and attendance (Rs. 10,000), totaling Rs. 2,00,500. The appeal was partly allowed, and the Insurance Company was directed to pay the enhanced amount with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Compensation - Minor Injured - Notional Income - For a minor injured in a motor accident, the notional income should be assessed as per the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, i.e., Rs. 15,000 per annum, and not on the basis of future earning capacity without evidence - Held that the Tribunal erred in taking notional income of Rs. 3,000 per month without any basis (Paras 5-6). B) Motor Accident Compensation - Permanent Disability - Assessment - In the absence of medical evidence regarding the exact percentage of disability, the court may assess functional disability based on the nature of injuries and their impact on the claimant's future life - Held that the Tribunal's assessment of 15% disability was reasonable and not interfered with (Paras 7-8). C) Motor Accident Compensation - Multiplier for Minor - As per the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the multiplier for a minor is 18, and the same should be applied uniformly - Held that the Tribunal erred in applying multiplier of 15 instead of 18 (Para 9). D) Motor Accident Compensation - Pain, Shock and Suffering - The compensation for pain, shock and suffering should be just and reasonable, considering the nature of injuries and period of hospitalization - Held that the Tribunal's award of Rs. 25,000 was inadequate and enhanced to Rs. 50,000 (Para 10). E) Motor Accident Compensation - Medical Expenses - Actual medical expenses incurred should be reimbursed based on bills produced - Held that the Tribunal correctly awarded Rs. 1,00,000 towards medical expenses (Para 11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to a minor injured in a motor accident is just and proper, particularly regarding the assessment of notional income, percentage of disability, and application of multiplier.
Final Decision
The appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award dated 20.04.2022 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Jamnagar in MACP No.70 of 2018 is modified. The appellant is entitled to total compensation of Rs. 2,00,500 with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount within eight weeks.
Law Points
- Compensation for minor injured in motor accident
- notional income of minor
- assessment of permanent disability
- multiplier for minor
- Motor Vehicles Act
- 1988 Section 166
- Section 173
