[2026:RJ-JP:16171] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2090/2018 Naveen Kumar S/o Vinod Kumar, age about 19 years, R/o Village Mehtawas, Tehsil Neemrana, District Alwar, Rajasthan ----Appellant/Claimant Versus 1. Deepak Yadav S/o Pohap Singh, R/o Mohalla Manpura, Behror, P.S. Behror, District Alwar, Rajasthan (Driver of vehicle HR-66-A-3234) 2. Ashok Kumar S/o Shri Ramniwas, R/o H. No. 164, Dohar Kalan, P.S. Sadar, Narnaul, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mahendragarh, Haryana (Owner of vehicle HR-66-A-3234) 3. TATA A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited, through Manager, Registered Office Pinsula Business Park, Tower A-15 Floor, Ganpatravo Kadam Marg of Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai (Insurance Company of vehicle HR-66-A-3234) ----Respondents/Non-claimants For Appellant(s) : Mr. Brahma Prakash For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chanderdeep Singh Jodha HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA Judgment 17/04/2026 1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-claimant (for short ‘claimant’) under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 25.01.2018, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District & Sessions Judge No.2) Behror, District-Alwar (for short ‘Tribunal’) in MAC Case No.09/2017 (60/2015) whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant was partly allowed. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the claimant filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal stating therein [2026:RJ-JP:16171] (2 of 6) [CMA-2090/2018] that on 27.01.2015, he along with one Krishna Kumar was going on a motorcycle bearing registration No.RJ02-SN-6873, from Rathor Chowk, Bahror to New Bus Stand, Bahror. The said motorcycle was being driven by Krishna Kumar and he was sitting as a pillion rider. When they reached near Takshashila School, a Scorpio car bearing registration No. HR-66A-3234, being driven by respondent No. 1 in rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle from behind, as a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries. 3. The claim petition filed by the claimant was partly allowed by the learned Tribunal and a total sum of Rs. 41,000/- along with interest @7.5% per annum was awarded in favour of the claimant. 4. Being dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, this appeal has been preferred by the claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation so awarded. 5. Learned counsel for the claimant has made the following submissions:- i. The learned Tribunal has failed to award compensation under the head of loss of earning capacity and has simply awarded Rs.5,000/- on account of injury sustained and Rs.26,000/- towards the medical bills. It is submitted that at the time of accident, the claimant was studying in the course of B.Sc. and was deriving income from agricultural activities and by selling of milk. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to compensation towards loss of earning capacity and the same should be determined on the basis of minimum wages notified for a skilled worker at the relevant point of time. [2026:RJ-JP:16171] (3 of 6) [CMA-2090/2018] ii. Considering the age of claimant at the time of accident i.e. 16 years, while calculating the compensation under the head of loss of earning capacity, multiplier of 18 should be applied and an addition @ 40% should also be made in the income of the claimant towards future prospects. iii. No amount has been awarded by the learned Tribunal towards loss of amenities, transportation expenses and nutritious diet. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the submissions made hereinabove by the learned counsel for the claimant and has submitted that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and fair, and therefore, no interference is required by this Court. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel Vs. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 10278/2025, decided on 08.08.2025, while dealing with the case of injury inflicted upon a minor due to motor accident has held that in the case of death or permanent disability of a minor, computation of compensation under the head of loss of income ought to be made by adopting at least minimum wages payable to a skilled workman as notified for the relevant period of time by the State Government. In this regard, relevant para of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder:- [2026:RJ-JP:16171] (4 of 6) [CMA-2090/2018] “9. On the aspect of monthly income of the minor appellant, we are inclined to interfere with the judgment and order of the Courts below. In the present case, it is evident that the Courts below have failed to take into account the monthly income of the appellant while determining the quantum of compensation. It is now a well-entrenched and consistently reiterated principle of law that a minor child who suffers death or permanent disability in a motor vehicle accident, cannot be placed in the same category as a non-earning individual for the purposes of assessing the amount of compensation because the child was not engaged in gainful employment at the time of the accident. In such a case, the computation of compensation under the head of loss of income ought to be made by adopting, at the very least, the minimum wages payable to a skilled workman as notified for the relevant period in the respective State where the cause of action arises......” In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that compensation under the head of loss of earning capacity will be awarded to the claimant and it will be calculated on the basis of minimum wages notified for a skilled workman for the relevant period of time. Undisputedly, at the time of accident, minimum wages notified, in the State of Rajasthan, for a skilled worker were Rs.217/- per day. Accordingly, the monthly income of the claimant would amount to Rs.6510/-. As a result thereof, the compensation for pecuniary loss viz. loss of earning capacity due to injuries sustained, deserves to be computed cumulatively on the basis of the aforesaid monthly income. 9. Since, at the time of accident, the age of claimant was 16 years, therefore, in view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, while determining the compensation towards loss of earning capacity, multiplier of 18 will be applied and an addition @ 40% will be made in the income of the claimant towards future prospects. [2026:RJ-JP:16171] (5 of 6) [CMA-2090/2018] 10. Moreover, the compensation for loss of earning capacity will be calculated on the basis of permanent disability as determined by the learned Tribunal i.e. 3%. 11. Further, this Court finds that the claimant incurred medical expenses of Rs.26,433/- towards injuries sustained by the claimant, of which medical bills were produced by him before the learned Tribunal, however, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.26,000/-, towards the same without any just reason, therefore, it is directed that the claimant shall be entitled to compensation of Rs.26,433/- towards medical bills. 12. In so far as the last contention raised by the claimant is concerned, this Court considers it just and proper to award a lump sum amount of Rs.10,000/- for the loss of amenities, transportation expenses and nutritious diet. 13. Thus, in view of the above discussion, the compensation payable to the claimant is re-computed as under:- S.No. Particular Amount assessed 1. Monthly Income Rs.217 x 30 = 6,510/- 2. Annual Income Rs.6,510 x 12 = Rs.78,120/- 3. According to the age of claimant i.e. 16 years, multiplier 18 to be applied. Rs.78,120 x 18 = Rs.14,06,160/- 4. Future Prospects @ 40% Rs.14,06,160 /- + Rs.5,62,464/- = Rs.19,68,624/- 5. Loss of Earning Capacity (3% disability) Rs.19,68,624/- x 3% = 59,058/- 6. Medical Expenses Rs.26,433/- 7. Pain & suffering (as awarded by Tribunal) Rs.10,000/- 8. Loss of Amenities, Rs.10,000/- [2026:RJ-JP:16171] (6 of 6) [CMA-2090/2018] Transportation Expenses, Nutritious Diet Total compensation (S.No.5+6+7+8) Rs.1,05,491/- Less amount awarded by the Tribunal (-) Rs.41,000/- Enhanced amount of compensation Rs. 64,491/- 14. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is enhanced by Rs.64,491/-. The rest of the impugned judgment and award shall remain intact. The respondents are directed to deposit the enhanced amount within a period of one months from today. 15. It is directed that the enhanced amount shall carry the rate of interest in terms of the award passed by the learned Tribunal, from the date of filing of the claim petition. The enhanced amount shall be disbursed in terms of the award passed by the learned Tribunal. 16. The present appeal is disposed of in the above terms. 17. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 18. Office is directed to send back the record of the case to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. (SANDEEP TANEJA),J SKS/11