[2026:RJ-JP:4467] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1035/2004 Mukesh S/o Hariram, R/o Jawahar Nagar, Kachhi Basti, Tilla No.2, Jaipur, aged about 16 years, through natural guardian father Hariram ----Appellant Versus 1. Sitaram S/o Shri Mohanlal Sharma, R/o Purana Katla, Subhash Chowk, Alwar. 2. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Transport Road, C-Scheme, through General Manager. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. K.N. Tiwari For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendar Meel, for RSRTC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA Judgment 30/01/2026 1. The instant civil misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant – Mukesh S/o Hariram, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 challenging the award dated 04.03.2004 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, whereby, while allowing M.A.C.T. Case No.1380/2000, the appellant was awarded a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that admittedly, the appellant suffered the permanent disability of 44% and same is not in dispute as it is an admitted fact as per record. He further submits that the learned Tribunal has not rightly assessed the claim amount. Considering the fact that the appellant was a minor [2026:RJ-JP:4467] (2 of 4) [CMA-1035/2004] boy aged about 12 years at the time of incident and his entire life has been rendered miserable due to the said accident. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the respondents have not challenged the award, therefore, the findings as recorded against are concerned, the same has attained finality. He further submits that he has prayed for enhancement by way of the present appeal on the ground of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited & Anr. reported in (2014) 14 SCC 396, wherein, in paragraph 12 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court has specified the percentage and the respective claim amount for which a person is entitled for the respective disability as suffered on account of the accident. Para 12 reads as under:- “12. 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, unless 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 loss of earning to the parents.” [2026:RJ-JP:4467] (3 of 4) [CMA-1035/2004] 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 Rs.25,000/- Hospitalization Medial 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/- 4. In view of the amount fixed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mallikarjun (supra), the learned counsel for the appellant has prayed that the amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal be enhanced to Rs. 4,00,000/- in terms of the above-mentioned judgment. 5. Mr. Surendar Meel, learned counsel appearing for the respondents- Insurance Company, could not dispute the judgment [2026:RJ-JP:4467] (4 of 4) [CMA-1035/2004] as passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malikarjun (supra). 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. As far as the findings in regard to negligence caused by the alleged vehicle are concerned, the same has attained finality, as the present appeal has been filed only for enhancement of the award by the claimant. 8. This Court considered the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mallikarjun (supra), wherein in paragraph 12, the Hon’ble Apex Court has fixed the amount for the respective percentage of disability as suffered by the injured person. 9. With the consent of the parties, the claim amount is enhanced to Rs.4,00,000/- in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mallikarjun (supra). 10. On the enhanced amount, the appellant would be entitled for the interest at 9% rate from the date of filing of the claim petition. 11. In view of above, the present civil misc. appeal is disposed of. 12. All pending application(s) stands disposed of. (RAVI CHIRANIA),J Ravi Khandelwal - 9