[2025:RJ-JP:2577] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 192/2025 Akash S/o Late Sh. Ramesh, Aged About 11 Years, Through His Guardian Smt Phula Bai W/o Late Sh. Ramesh R/o Village Bawarikhera District Bundi ----Appellant Versus 1. Ms. Priya D/o Sh. Mahavir Prasad, R/o Gayatri Nagar District Bundi (Driver And Owner Of Offending Vehicle Scooty No. Rj-08-As-4019) 2. I.c.i.c.i Lombard General Insurance Co., Through Regional Manager At Regional Office 10Th Floor, Unit No. 1003 To 1008, Signature Towers, Dc, 2 Lal Kothi Scheme District Shopping Centre, Tonk Road, Jaipur 302001 (Insurance Company Of Offending Vehicle Scooty No. Rj-08-As-4019) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sunil Jain For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 17/01/2025 1. Dissatisfied from award dated 21.09.2024 in MAC Case No. 312/2023 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.1, Bundi, instant CMA is preferred by appellant-claimant. 2. Learned counsel for appellant while relying upon judgments in cases of Master Mallikarjun Vs. Divisional Manager The National Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr 2013 ACJ 2445 (SC) and Master Ayush Vs. The Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 2205-2206 OF 2022 (Arising out of SLP (CIVIL) Nos. 7238- 39of 2021) submitted that disability in the instant case was 9% [2025:RJ-JP:2577] (2 of 3) [CMA-192/2025] and claimant was entitled for minimum compensation of ₹1 lac but the Tribunal acted contrary to settled principle of law. He further submitted that the claim petition is filed only for enhancement of compensation. He further submitted that learned Tribunal has not applied multiplier in the instant case to determine compensation on basis of minimum wages. 3. Heard learned counsel for appellant and perused the material placed on record. 4. In an accident on 22.02.2023 from scooty driven by respondent No. 1, a claim petition was filed by a nine years old claimant through his mother Smt. Phoola Bai. A permanent disability certificate of 9% was filed with claim petition and same was exhibited by guardian of claimant AW-1. The Tribunal after going through the certificate opined that the claimant has not suffered any permanent disability and he is not entitled for any compensation. The Tribunal has assessed total compensation of ₹48,132/- and awarded with interest. 5. In case of Master Mallikarjun Vs. Divisional Manager The National Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered quantum of compensation in case of injury and opined that if the disability is up to 10% to the whole body then compensation should be ₹1 lac unless there are exceptional circumstances to take a different yardstick. 6. Learned counsel for appellant has further relied upon judgment in case of Master Ayush Vs. The Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. (supra), wherein there was permanent disability of 100%, due to injury in spinal cord lesion related paraplegia. [2025:RJ-JP:2577] (3 of 3) [CMA-192/2025] 7. Herein this case, the injured was nine years old boy and only his mother has exhibited permanent disability certificate. No evidence whatsoever was led about any difficulty in movement of left elbow as he sustained fracture on left elbow, only. The disability was not assessed on basis of whole body as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar 2011 (1) TAC 785 (SC). The Tribunal after relying upon judgments in case of Sanjay Kumar Vs. Ashok Kumar & Anr. Reported in (2014) 5 SCC 330, G. Ravindranath @ R. Chowdhary Vs. E. Srinivas & Anr. Reported in (2013)12 SCC 455 and Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar (supra) has determined the compensation. 8. Considering the material available on record and also considered by the Tribunal, I am of considered view that there is no ground to entertain or admit instant appeal, therefore, the judgment in case of Master Mallikarjun Vs. Divisional Manager The National Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr 2013 ACJ 2445 (SC) and Master Ayush Vs. The Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. (supra) are not applicable in the instant case. Thus, the civil misc. appeal is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 9. Thus, instant Civil Misc. Appeal, is hereby dismissed. 10. Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J GAURAV /47