Gujarat High Court
Minor Divya Kantibhai Vankar, Minor ... vs Prakashbhai Parshottambhai Prajapati on 17 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2520/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2520 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
============================================
MINOR DIVYA KANTIBHAI VANKAR, MINOR THROU GUARDIAN AND
FRIEND MOTHER JASHODABEN KANTIBHAI VANKAR
Versus
PRAKASHBHAI PARSHOTTAMBHAI PRAJAPATI & ANR.
============================================
Appearance:
MS DISHA N NANAVATY(2957) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS KIRTI S PATHAK(9966) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
UNSERVED EXPIRED (R) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 17/02/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1) This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant-original claimant, against the judgment and award dated 17.04.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi), Kheda at Nadiad in MACP No.1141 of 2015.
2) Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. Page 1 of 21 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Thu Feb 19 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:09:07 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2520/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 undefined
3) The brief facts of the case are that on 09.02.2015, the minor boy Divya Kantibhai Vankar - claimant (who shall hereinafter be referred to as "minor / injured / claimant" for short) was pillion rider on motorcycle bearing Reg. No.GJ-01-EJ-2631 and going to Kapadwanj, and when they reached near the place of accident i.e. in the periphery of Village Mahammadpura, at that time, one Mahindra Pickup car bearing Reg. No.GJ-18-AV-4903, being driven by the driver of the opponent no.1, came in rash and negligent manner and dashed his Mahindra Pickup with the motorcycle on which the minor was a pillion rider. As a result, the said grievous accident was occurred and the minor sustained grievous injuries and fracture on his body. Therefore, the appellant had filed MAC Petition seeking compensation, wherein, the learned Tribunal after appreciating the evidence produced on record has partly allowed the claim petition.
4) The learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has committed error in attributing 10% negligence on the part of motorcycle rider and 90% on the part of the Mahindra Pickup Car and as the appellant was pillion rider on the motorcycle it is the case of composite negligence on the part of the appellant and therefore the Tribunal ought not to have deducted 10% amount from the award. He has further submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in assessing income of Page 2 of 21 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Thu Feb 19 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:09:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2520/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 undefined the appellant on notional basis and considered only Rs.18,000/- per year. He has further submitted that the learned Tribunal has grossly erred in not granting any rise for future prospective income to the appellant. He has further submitted that the Tribunal has erred in considering the multiplier of 15 though the injured being minor of 8 years the multiplier of 18 is required to be applied. He has further submitted that the learned Tribunal has assessed only 30% disability though Dr. Yogesh Parikh has been examined before the Tribunal vide Exhibit 56 and deposed that the injured has to wear artificial foot. Even the Disability Certificate referred for 65% despite that the learned Tribunal has assessed 30% disability body as whole. He has further submitted that the Tribunal did not award any compensation under the head of loss of marriage prospects, even though the victim, being a minor girl, had to undergo amputation of his right leg. It was also submitted that the Tribunal failed to award amounts towards non pecuniary loss, even though the claimant was a minor and had suffered considerable hardship. Therefore, considering the loss suffered due to his physical disability, interference by this Court is called for. Hence, he has requested to allow the present appeal.
5) On the contrary, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.2 has strongly opposed the appeal and submitted that the Page 3 of 21 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Thu Feb 19 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:09:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2520/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 undefined learned Tribunal has properly appreciated the evidence produced on record. She has further submitted that considering the disability of the appellant the ratio laid down in the case of Master Mallikarjun vs. Divisional Manager, The National Ins. Co. Ltd., reported in (2014) 14 SCC 396, is squarely applicable to the present case and the award is required to be passed accordingly. Hence, she has requested to dismiss the present appeal.
6) Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and upon perusal of the material placed on record, it appears that the appeal has been filed on the ground of quantum, the question of contributory negligence of motorcycle rider and Mahindra Pickup driver and deduction of 10% amount from the award despite the fact that it is the case of composite negligent. The learned Tribunal after appreciating the evidence produced on record relied upon decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bimla Devi v. H.R.T.C., AIR 2009 SC 2819, and Parmeshwari Devi v. Amir Chand, (2011) 11 SCC 635, has concluded that the accident was occurred due to 90% negligence of the driver of Mahindra Pickup owned by respondent no.1 and 10% of rider of motorcycle. The factum of accident, involvement of the vehicles, liability and coverage under the insurance policy are not in dispute in the present appeal.
Page 4 of 21 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Thu Feb 19 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:09:07 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2520/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 undefined
7) So far as the issue of contributory negligence is concerned, it is needless to say that the minor claimant was a pillion rider. In the case of a pillion rider, for him the matter is of composite negligence and not contributory negligence and in the case of composite negligence the claimant has right to recover the amount of compensation from any of the tortfeasor involved in the accident. As per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Khenyei Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., reported in 2015 (9) SCC 273, question does not arise to deduct 10% amount from the awarded amount to the appellant. It is worthwhile to mention here that the appellant has filed a pursis at Exhibit 27, waiving the negligence of the driver of motorcycle, and therefore, the learned Tribunal has deducted 10% amount on the part of motorcycle rider from the total awarded amount. However, considering the ratio laid down in Khenyei (supra) this Court is of the view that the pursis at Exhibit 27 filed by the appellant, is against the law and such practice is unsustainable and bad in the eyes of law. Therefore, up to that extent the learned Tribunal has committed error in deducting 10% amount for the negligence on the part of the motorcycle rider on the basis of pursis at Exhibit 27, and the same is required to be quashed and set aside and interference is required to modify the impugned judgment to the extent that the appellant is entitled to get 100% compensation amount from Page 5 of 21 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Thu Feb 19 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:09:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2520/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 undefined the respondents.
8) So far as the question of quantum is concerned, it appears that the learned Tribunal has considered the notional income of the claimant at Rs. 18,000/- per annum. It is needless to state that even in the case of a minor, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Anr., Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1070, the Tribunal or the High Court, while dealing with a case involving a child who has suffered injuries or has died, is required to assess loss of income on the basis of the minimum wages payable to a skilled worker in the concerned State at the relevant point of time. Therefore, as the accident was occurred on 09.02.2015 and the rate of minimum wages of that time is Rs.7,384/-, the income of the appellant is required to be enhanced and reassessed as Rs.7,400/- per month.
9) Considering the nature of injury and age of the victim and has sustained the partial permanent disability and other consequential losses of said injury, claimant is entitled for getting the compensation in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand and Others reported in (2020) 4 SCC 413, wherein, it has been held that the Tribunal shall award the compensation very conservatively keeping in mind the degree of deprivation and the Page 6 of 21 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Thu Feb 19 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:09:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2520/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 undefined loss caused by such deprivation which can be termed as "just compensation" as insured / injured claimant has to face the consequences throughout his life and that should not be any token damages. Even, in the case of Master Ayush vs. Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited and Anr. reported in (2022) 7 SCC 738, relying on the decision in the case of Kajal (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court by observing in paragraph No.7 as under:-
"7. It was also argued that in a judgment reported as Kajal v. Jagdish Chand2, the injured was a 12 years old girl who had suffered an injury to the extent that her IQ got less than 20% as compared to a child of her age and the medical board had assessed her social age to be only of a 9-months' old child. This Court had recognized that Schedule II of the Act could be used as a guide for the multiplier to be applied in each case. This Court in the aforesaid case held as under (SCC pp. 419, 421 & 426, paras 6, 12 & 27) "6. It is impossible to equate human suffering and personal deprivation with money. However, this is what the Act enjoins upon the courts to do. The court has to make a judicious attempt to award damages, so as to compensate the claimant for the loss suffered by the victim. On the one hand, the compensation should not be assessed very conservatively, but on the other hand, the compensation should also not be assessed in so liberal a fashion so as to make it a bounty to the claimant. The court while assessing the compensation should have regard to the degree of deprivation and the loss caused by such deprivation. Such compensation is what is termed as just compensation. The compensation or damages assessed for personal injuries should be substantial to compensate the injured for the deprivation suffered by the injured throughout his/her life. They should not be just token damages.
Page 7 of 21 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Thu Feb 19 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:09:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2520/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 undefined xxx xxx xxx 12. The assesment of damages in personal
injury cases raises great difficulties. It is not easy to convert the physical and mental loss into monetary terms. There has to be a measure of calculated guesswork and conjecture. An assessment, as best as can, in the circumstances, should be made.
1) xxx xxx xxx
27. One factor which must be kept in mind while assessing the compensation in a case like the present one is that the claim can be awarded only once. The claimant cannot come back to court for enhancement of award at a later stage praying that something extra has been spent. Therefore, the courts or the Tribunals assessing the compensation in a case of 100% disability, especially where there is mental disability also, should take a liberal view of the matter when awarding the compensation. While awarding this amount, we are not only taking the physical disability but also the mental disability and various other factors. This child will remain bedridden for life. Her mental age will be that of a nine-month-old child. Effectively, while her body grows, she will remain a small baby. We are dealing with a girl who will physically become a woman but will mentally remain a 9-month-old child. This girl will miss out playing with her friends. She cannot communicate; she cannot enjoy the pleasures of life; she cannot even be amused by watching cartoons or films; she will miss out the fun of childhood, the excitement of youth; the pleasures of a marital life; she cannot have children who she can love, let alone grandchildren. She will have no pleasure. Her's is a vegetable existence. Therefore, we feel in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case even after taking a very conservative view of the matter an amount payable for the pain and suffering of this child should be at least Rs 15,00,000."Page 8 of 21 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Thu Feb 19 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:09:07 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2520/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 undefined
10) Thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case relating to a minor has considered the multiplier of 18. As the learned Tribunal has not relied upon the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kajal (supra), an error has been committed by the learned Tribunal in applying a multiplier of 15. Accordingly, the multiplier of 18 is required to be applied in the present case.
11) Further, as per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [2009 (6) SCC 121] and National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 ACJ 2700, the learned Tribunal erred in not awarding future prospect, however, as per the above judgments this Court is of the view that 40% addition towards future prospect is required to be considered.
12) Further, compensation is required to be awarded once and for all, as the victim is not at fault, and it is the duty of the Tribunal to award just compensation. Considering the overall facts and circumstances relating to the treatment undergone by the claimant, mental agony, pain, disablement, loss of future earning capacity, expenditure incurred towards hospitalization, nutritious diet, and attendant charges, the said aspects were required to be duly taken into consideration. However, the Page 9 of 21 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Thu Feb 19 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:09:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2520/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 undefined learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated these factors and has failed to award just compensation under the heads of non- pecuniary damages, including loss of amenities. It is also pertinent to observe that adopting a sensitive approach is crucial for the Tribunal, as it plays a vital role in ensuring not only justice to the victim of a motor accident but also in determining fair and reasonable compensation. The Tribunal is expected to act with empathy so as to prevent further trauma, since victims of road accidents and their families often suffer severe physical and emotional distress, and a humane approach by the adjudicating authority instills a sense of support and understanding.
13) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sidram vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited and Anr. reported in (2023) 3 SCC 439, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court relying on its decision in the case of Pappu Deo Yadav vs. Naresh Kumar reported in (2022) 13 SCC 790 has observed and held in paragraph 113 as under:
"113. Before we close this matter, it needs to be underlined, as observed in Pappu Deo Yadav (supra) that Courts should be mindful that a serious injury not only permanently imposes physical limitations and disabilities but too often inflicts deep mental and emotional scars upon the victim. The attendant trauma of the victim's having to live in a world entirely different from the one she or he is born into, as an invalid, and with degrees of dependence on others, robbed of complete personal choice or autonomy, should forever Page 10 of 21 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Thu Feb 19 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:09:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2520/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 undefined be in the judge's mind, whenever tasked to adjudge compensation claims. Severe limitations inflicted due to such injuries undermine the dignity (which is now recognized as an intrinsic component of the right to life under Article 21 of the individual, thus depriving the person of the essence of the right to a wholesome life which she or he had lived, hitherto. From the world of the able bodied, the victim is thrust into the world of the disabled, itself most discomfiting and unsettling. If courts nit-pick and award niggardly amounts oblivious of these circumstances, there is resultant affront to the injured victim."
14) In view of the above, the income of the appellant is reassessed as Rs.7,400/- per month, adding 40% future prospects, the monthly income would come to Rs.10,360/- (Rs.7,400 + Rs.2,960). Thereafter, applying the multiplier of 18, as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 ACJ 2700, the future economic loss would be Rs.10,360 × 12 × 18 = Rs.22,37,760/-.
15) Now coming to the aspect of disablement, to prove his disablement the appellant has examined Dr. Yogesh T. Parikh, at Exhibit 23, as per which it appears that below hip and above knee of right leg i.e. at the middle of the thigh having length of 10 inch stump amputation being done. The Doctor has assessed 65% disability and 32.5% body as a whole and produced Disability Certificate at Exhibit 24. It is pertinent to note that in Page 11 of 21 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Thu Feb 19 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:09:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2520/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 undefined injury cases while awarding just compensation the learned Tribunal has to consider the functional disability and effect of disablement qua in relation to avocation and profession of the claimant. The physical disability and functional disability are all together different and the learned Tribunal has to ascertain the functional disability and Doctor has nothing to do with the functional disability. In this regard reference is required to be made from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Raj Kumar (supra), in paragraphs 8, 10 and 11 reads as under:
8. Disability refers to any restriction or lack of ability to perform an activity in the manner considered normal for a human-being. Permanent disability refers to the residuary incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body, found existing at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation, after achieving the maximum bodily improvement or recovery which is likely to remain for the remainder life of the injured. Temporary disability refers to the incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body on account of the injury, which will cease to exist at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation.
Permanent disability can be either partial or total. Partial permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform all the duties and bodily functions that he could perform before the accident, though he is able to perform some of them and is still able to engage in some gainful activity. Total permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform any avocation or employment related activities as a result of the accident. The permanent disabilities that may arise from motor accidents injuries, are of a much wider range when compared to the physical disabilities which are enumerated in the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Page 12 of 21 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Thu Feb 19 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:09:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2520/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 undefined Full Participation) Act, 1995 (`Disabilities Act' for short). But if any of the disabilities enumerated in section 2(i) of the Disabilities Act are the result of injuries sustained in a motor accident, they can be permanent disabilities for the purpose of claiming compensation.
9. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
10. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings, would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation.
11. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanently disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terns of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the Page 13 of 21 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Thu Feb 19 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:09:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2520/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 undefined permanent disability, is approximately the same as the percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of compensation (see for example, the decisions of this court in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298 and Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567)."
16) Thus while assessing permanent disablement of the claimant the learned Tribunal ought to have considered on the actual earning capacity in following three steps as under :
I. The Tribunal has to ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent disability.
II. The Tribunal has to ascertain the claimant's avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident.
III. The Tribunal has to find out whether the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on or whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his Page 14 of 21 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Thu Feb 19 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:09:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2520/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 undefined livelihood.
17) In view of above it is the duty of the Court and the Tribunals to ascertain the functional disability of claimant in all injury cases filed under the MV Act for getting compensation. At the same time in Raj Kumar (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken the note and further observed about duty and role of learned Tribunal in paragraphs 16 to 18, read as under :-
"16. The Tribunal should not be a silent spectator when medical evidence is tendered in regard to the injuries and their effect, in particular the extent of permanent disability. Sections 168 and 169 of the Act make it evident that the Tribunal does not function as a neutral umpire as in a civil suit, but as an active explorer and seeker of truth who is required to `hold an enquiry into the claim' for determining the `just compensation'. The Tribunal should therefore take an active role to ascertain the true and correct position so that it can assess the `just compensation'. While dealing with personal injury cases, the Tribunal should preferably equip itself with a Medical Dictionary and a Handbook for evaluation of permanent physical impairment (for example the Manual for Evaluation of Permanent Physical Impairment for Orthopedic Surgeons, prepared by American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons or its Indian equivalent or other authorized texts) for understanding the medical evidence and assessing the physical and functional disability. The Tribunal may also keep in view the first schedule to the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 which gives some indication about the extent of permanent disability in different types of injuries, in the case of workmen.
17. If a Doctor giving evidence uses technical medical terms, the Tribunal should instruct him to state in addition, in simple non-medical terms, the nature and the effect of the injury. If a doctor gives evidence about the Page 15 of 21 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Thu Feb 19 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:09:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2520/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 undefined percentage of permanent disability, the Tribunal has to seek clarification as to whether such percentage of disability is the functional disability with reference to the whole body or whether it is only with reference to a limb. If the percentage of permanent disability is stated with reference to a limb, the Tribunal will have to seek the doctor's opinion as to whether it is possible to deduce the corresponding functional permanent disability with reference to the whole body and, if so, the percentage.
18. The Tribunal should also act with caution, if it proposed to accept the expert evidence of doctors who did not treat the injured but who give `ready to use' disability certificates, without proper medical assessment. There are several instances of unscrupulous doctors who without treating the injured, readily giving liberal disability certificates to help the claimants. But where the disability certificates are given by duly constituted Medical Boards, they may be accepted subject to evidence regarding the genuineness of such certificates. The Tribunal may invariably make it a point to require the evidence of the Doctor who treated the injured or who assessed the permanent disability. Mere production of a disability certificate or Discharge Certificate will not be proof of the extent of disability stated therein unless the Doctor who treated the claimant or who medically examined and assessed the extent of disability of claimant, is tendered for cross- examination with reference to the certificate. If the Tribunal is not satisfied with the medical evidence produced by the claimant, it can constitute a Medical Board (from a panel maintained by it in consultation with reputed local Hospitals/Medical Colleges) and refer the claimant to such Medical Board for assessment of the disability."
18) The arguments canvassed by the learned Advocate for the respondent no.2 - Insurance Company to award the compensation in tune of Master Mallikarjun (supra) is not Page 16 of 21 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Thu Feb 19 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:09:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2520/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 undefined acceptable because of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not fixed the parameters as inviolable standard and declared that in exceptional circumstances the Tribunal and the Court would be empowered to grant more as per the factual requirement required to be assessed from case to case. In the case on hand, as discussed in earlier part and also in the case of Baby Sakshi Greola Vs. Manzoor Ahmed Simon and Anr, reported in 2024 INSC 963, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referring Kajal (supra) more particularly in paragraphs 26 and 27 and in the case of Master Ayush (supra) more particularly paragraph 14, the determination of damages in personal injury cases is not easy. The mental and physical loss cannot be computed in terms of money but there is no other way to compensate the victim except by payment of just compensation. In this regard paragraphs 23 and 24 of the case of Kajal (supra) is required to be considered. Herein the age of minor is only 8 years and he will miss out the enjoyment with the friends, he cannot enjoy the pleasure of life and also miss out fun of childhood. Herein due to injuries the minor is in a vegetable existence. Hence, the arguments canvassed by the learned Advocate for the respondent no.2 - Insurance Company to award compensation in light of Master Mallikarjun (supra) is not acceptable. Page 17 of 21 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Thu Feb 19 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:09:07 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2520/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 undefined
19) In view of above, this Court is of the considered view that considering the medical evidence produced at Exhibit 24, and the injuries specified for permanent partial disablement in Schedule I, Part II of the Workmen's Compensation Act, in cases of amputation of the lower limb below hip with the stump below middle thigh not exceeding 12.70 cms in length, at least 80% permanent functional disability is required to be considered. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has committed error to that extent. Accordingly, the amount towards future economic loss would come to Rs.22,37,760 × 80% / 100 = Rs.17,90,208/-.
20) So far as pain, shock and suffering are concerned, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.30,000/-. In view of the ratio laid down in the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.S. Murlidhara v. R. Subbulakshmi, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3385, and Reshma v. Dajiba Krishna Lad and Another, reported in 2025 INSC 1320, the amount awarded under the said head is required to be enhanced to Rs.5,00,000/- from Rs.30,000/-.
21) It appears that Rs.5,000/- has been awarded towards medical expenses by the Tribunal, which appears to be just and proper and needs no interference. The appellant is also entitled for Rs.3,00,000/- towards marriage prospects, loss of amenities and loss of enjoyment of life, whereas, the Tribunal erred in not Page 18 of 21 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Thu Feb 19 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:09:07 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2520/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 undefined awarding any amount under the said heads. The appellant is also entitled for Rs.1,50,000/- towards artificial limb and future medical expenses also and Rs.1,00,000/- towards special diet, attendant charges and transportation.
22) As discussed above, the appellant is entitled to compensation which is reassessed and computed as under:
Heads Awarded by Reassessed by this Court Tribunal Future economic loss Rs.81,000/- Rs.17,90,208/-
including additional amount of Rs.17,09,208/-
Medical expenses Rs.5,000/- Rs.5,000/-
Pain, shock and Rs.30,000/- Rs.5,00,000/-
suffering including additional
amount of Rs.4,70,000/-
Transportation, Rs.15,000/- Rs.1,00,000/-
special diet and including additional
attendant charges amount of Rs.85,000/-
Marriage prospects, NIL/- Rs.3,00,000/-
loss of amenities and including additional
loss of enjoyment of amount of Rs.3,00,000/-
life
Artificial limb and NIL/- Rs.1,50,000/-
future medical including additional
expenses amount of Rs.1,50,000/-
Total compensation Rs.1,31,000/- Rs.28,45,208/-
including total additional
amount of Rs.27,14,208/-
Compensation Rs.1,17,900/- NIL
awarded (After deducting (Deduction of 10% amount
10% amount ) is quashed and set aside)
Additional amount Rs.27,27,308/-
(Rs.28,45,208/- - Rs.1,17,900/-)
Page 19 of 21
Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Thu Feb 19 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:09:07 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2520/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026
undefined
23) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Nagappa Vs Gurudayal
Singh and others, reported in (2003) 2 Supreme Court Cases 274, has observed that there is no restriction that compensation could be awarded only up to the amount claimed by the claimant and in an appropriate case, where from the evidence brought on record if the Tribunal / Court considers that the claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed, the amount of compensation more than the claimed amount can be awarded.
24) Hence, present appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award is hereby modified to Rs.28,45,208/-
from Rs.1,17,900/-. The appellant would be entitled to get additional amount of Rs.27,27,308/- with proportionate costs and interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal. The respondents shall deposit said additional amount before the Tribunal within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
25) However, it is kept open for the respondent no.2 - Insurance Company, if desires, to take appropriate action against another tort-feasor who is not joined as a party.
Page 20 of 21 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Thu Feb 19 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:09:07 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2520/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 undefined
26) Record and proceedings be remitted back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. The Tribunal is directed to recover or deduct the deficit court fees on enhanced amount and thereafter disburse the amount accordingly.
27) Award to be drawn accordingly.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ANKIT JANSARI
Page 21 of 21
Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Thu Feb 19 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:09:07 IST 2026