Mr. Manish Maini Ms. Aastha Chauhan, Advocate v. RAMBEER ORS

Judgment

1. The appellant, who was the claimant before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [“the Tribunal”], has preferred the present appeal, assailing an award dated 02.12.2011, passed in MACT Suit No. 573/09/08. She seeks enhancement of the compensation granted to her by the Tribunal, which was for the sum of Rs.5,30,400/-, alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. A.

2. FACTS The facts of the accident, as narrated in the award, are that on

03.08.2008, the appellant was travelling on a motorcycle bearing registration No. DL-5SZ-6505, being driven by her uncle, when they were hit by an RTV bus bearing registration No. DL-1VA-1876 [“offending vehicle”], driven by respondent No.1. The appellant sustained grievous injuries as a result of the accident, for which she was Signature Not Verified Signed By:PARUL VASHIST Signing Date:18.12.2025 19:12:23 MAC.APP. 671/2013

first treated at Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, Shahdara, New Delhi, and subsequently at Sushruta Trauma Centre, New Delhi, and Lok Nayak Hospital, New Delhi. At the time of the accident, the appellant was about 15 years of age.

3. The accident resulted in criminal proceedings against the driver of the offending vehicle. FIR No. 365/2008, dated 03.08.2008, under Sections 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was registered against respondent No.1 at P.S. Nand Nagri, New Delhi. B.

4. IMPUGNED AWARD The appellant filed a claim petition before the Tribunal, alleging rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle [respondent No.1 herein]. The owner of the offending vehicle and the insurer thereof [respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein] were also arrayed as respondents before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, returned a finding of negligence against respondent No.1, and awarded compensation under the following heads: Sr. No Pecuniary Heads: Heads Amount Medical expenses Conveyance Special diet Attendant charges

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Loss of earning capacity Loss of studies during treatment period Non-Pecuniary Heads: Rs.4,356/- Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/- Rs.18,000/- Rs.2,43,000/- Rs.25,000/-

7. 8. Pain and suffering Loss of amenities of life Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.1,00,000/- Signature Not Verified Signed By:PARUL VASHIST Signing Date:18.12.2025 19:12:23 MAC.APP. 671/2013

9. Loss of expectation of life Total SUBMISSIONS Rs.20,000/- Rs.5,30,356 (Rounded off to Rs.5,30,400/-) I have heard Ms. Aastha Chauhan, learned counsel for the C.

5. appellant, and Mr. R.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent No.3 – Oriental Insurance Company Limited [“Insurance Company”].

6. Ms. Chauhan submits that the compensation ought to be enhanced on the following grounds: a. That the Tribunal has erroneously assessed the loss of earning capacity based on notional income of Rs.15,000/- per annum, whereas loss of earning capacity of the appellant ought to have been assessed on the basis of the minimum wages of a matriculate, i.e., at Rs.4,131/- per month, in terms of the judgments of the Supreme Court in Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon & Anr.1 and Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Anr2. b. That the Tribunal awarded non-pecuniary damages only to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/- each for pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life, which is wholly inadequate, and failed to grant compensation for mental and physical shock, loss of marriage prospects, and disfigurement. c. That the Tribunal awarded insufficient compensation under the heads of conveyance, special diet, and attendant charges. 1 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3692 [hereinafter, “Sakshi Greola”]. 2 SLP No. 14444/2025, decided on 08.08.2025 [hereinafter, “Hitesh”]. Signature Not Verified Signed By:PARUL VASHIST Signing Date:18.12.2025 19:12:23 MAC.APP. 671/2013

7. Mr. Tripathi, on the other hand, submitted that the Tribunal’s assessment of functional disability of the appellant, to the extent of 60%, is overestimated, having regard to the nature and extent of her disability.

8. D.

9. Each of the above aspects is dealt with below. APPLICABILITY OF MINIMUM WAGES On the first ground of challenge, Ms. Chauhan submits that the issue is no longer res integra. The loss of earning capacity of a minor child is to be assessed on the basis of the minimum wages of a skilled worker, and not on the basis of notional income. Reliance in this regard is placed on the recent decisions of the Supreme Court in Sakshi Greola and Hitesh. The Tribunal, on the other hand, has assessed compensation based on notional income of only Rs.15,000/- per annum.

10. In Sakshi Greola, the Court was considering a claim of a 7 year old child who had suffered 75% permanent disability. Relying on its earlier judgments in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand3, Master Ayush v. Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited4, and K.S. Muralidhar v. R. Subbulakshmi5, the Court held as follows: “28. The learned Tribunal on appreciation of the medical evidence came to a conclusion that, since the appellant was only seven years at the time of the accident, it would be appropriate to take notional income as per the MV Act to be Rs. 15,000/- per annum. The learned Tribunal applied a multiplier of 15 which was taken up to the age of fifteen years. Therefore, an amount of 15,000 x 15 x 75/100 = Rs. 1,68,750/- was awarded by the learned Tribunal. The High Court did not enhance the amount awarded under this head.

29. This court in the case of Kajal (supra) has held that taking notional income is not the correct approach. Instead, the minimum wages payable to a skilled workman in the concerned State has to be