[2025:RJ-JP:41246] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1936/2024 Rahul Meen S/o Prabhu Dayal, Aged About 25 Years, R/o- Khoraladkhani, Tehsil Shahpura, Distt. Jaipur. ----Claimant/Appellant Versus 1. Arjun Lal S/o Chhaju Lal, R/o- Manoharpur, P.S. Manoharpur, Tehsil Shahpura, Distt. Jaipur Raj. (Driver Motor Cycle No. Rj-14-Yb-8226) 2. Ram Singh S/o Kanaram, R/o- Khoraladkhani, P.S. Manoharpur, Distt. Jaipur, Raj. (Regd. Owner Motor Cycle No. Rj-14-Yb-8226) 3. Ghanshyam S/o Badri, R/o-267 Barkadi Ki Dhani, Ten Raisar, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, Distt. Jaipur, Raj. (Insured Motor Cycle No. Rj-14-Yb-8226) 4. Megma HDI General Insurance Company Limited, Through Regional Manager Office-Floor 205-206, Kamal Ratan Chamber, M.I. Road, Jaipur. (Insurer Of Motor Cycle No. Rj-14-Yb-8226) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ram Sharan Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.S. Jodha HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 09/10/2025 1. This present appeal has been preferred by the claimant/appellant for enhancement of the amount as awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shahpura, District Jaipur in Claim Petition No.195/2016 whereby, the total compensation has been awarded as Rs.1,70,900/-. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 20.04.2016 at about 12:00 PM, the claimant is said to have got injured in an accident by [2025:RJ-JP:41246] (2 of 5) [CMA-1936/2024] motorcycle bearing registration number RJ-14-YB-8226 being driven rashly and negligently by its driver. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has allowed compensation amount on a very lower side whereas, the injured-complainant being aged about sixteen and half years is entitled to receive compensation to the tune of Rs.3,75,000/- in view of the ratio of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court the case of Master Mallikarjun Vs. Divisional Manager, The National Insurance Company Limited & Anr. : MACD 2013 (SC) 300. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-insurance copnay submits that in case of Master Mallikarjun (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has awarded compensation in view of the fact that the claimant therein was a child of aged about 12 years. In the present case, age of the claimant is more than 16 years and he cannot be said to be a child. 5. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and perused the material made available on record. 6. Admittedly, the claimant-appellant at the time of the alleged accident was aged about sixteen and half years. Now, this Court has to see whether the appellant-claimant was a child at the time of accident so as to cover his case under the purview of the ratio in case of Master Mallikarjun (supra). 7. As per dictionary meaning of a “child” is a young boy or girl who is not yet adult. In the act Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, “child” has been defined under Section 2(1) (d) wherein, child means any person below the age of eighteen years. In the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) [2025:RJ-JP:41246] (3 of 5) [CMA-1936/2024] Act, 2015, the definition of a child has been given in Section 2(12) wherein, “child” means a person who has not completed eighteen years of age. A person is considered to be a child if he is under eighteen years of age, though in a specific legal context, such as age of majority may vary by counter and specific laws such as those governing children right, child labour and criminal justice. 18 years is the most common age for determination when someone is no longer a child. On consideration of overall aspects and various laws, a person who is under the age of 18 years is to be considered as a child. In the present case, age of the claimant at the time of alleged was sixteen and half years and therefore, in opinion of this Court at the time of accident the claimant-appellant was a child and his case under the ratio of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Master Mallikarjun (supra). 8. In case of Master Mallikarjun (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court in para 12 observed as under:- “Though it is difficult to have an accurate assessment of the compensation in the case of children suffering disability on account of a motor vehicle accident, having regard to the relevant factors, precedents and the approach of various High Courts, we are of the view that the appropriate compensation on all other heads in addition to the actual expenditure for treatment, attendant, etc., should be, if the disability is above 10% and upto 30% to the whole body, Rs.3 lakhs; upto 60%, Rs.4 lakhs; upto 90%, Rs.5 lakhs and above 90%, it should be Rs.6 lakhs. For permanent disability upto 10%, it should be Rs.1 lakh, unelss there are exceptional circumstances to take different yardstick. In the instant case, the disability is to the tune of 18%. Appellant had a longer period of hospitalization for about two months causing also inconvenience and also of earning to the parents. [2025:RJ-JP:41246] (4 of 5) [CMA-1936/2024] The appellant, hence, would be entitled to get the compensation as follows :- Head Compensation Amount Pain and suffering already undergone and to be suffered in future, mental and physical shock, hardship, inconvenience, and discomforts, etc., and loss of amenities in life on account of permanent disability……………. Rs.3,00,000/- Discomfort, inconvenience and loss of earnings to the parents during the period of hospitalization………………... Rs.25,000/- Medical and incidental expenses during the period of hospitalization for 58 days……... Rs.25,000/- Future medical expenses for correction of the mal union of fracture and incidental expenses for such treatment….. Rs.25,000/- Total :- Rs.3,75,000/- 9. In the present case the claimant-appellant has suffered 20% permanent disability as there is fracture of C2 vertebrae and thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.3,75,000/- as per the ratio of judgment in case of Master Mallikarjun (supra). 10. Accordingly, the impugned awrd dated 29.09.2023 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shahpura, District Jaipur in Claim Petition No.195/2016 is modified as under:- The claimant will be entitled for total compensation of Rs.3,75,000/- (including the compensation amount awarded by the MACT) alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. The respondent-insurance company is directed to deposit the total compensation amount (minus already deposited, if any) alongwith interest as above within a period of two months from today. On deposition of the same, it will be [2025:RJ-JP:41246] (5 of 5) [CMA-1936/2024] open to the claimant-appellant to approach the Tribunal for appropriate orders on withdrawal. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J Ashish Kumar /81