Allowed

Shri Surendra Singh v. Shri Ladu Singh and Ors.

Rajasthan HC1 Apr 2026CMA/2410/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed an appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. It enhanced the compensation awarded to a 14-year-old minor injured in an accident, recalculating loss of earning capacity using state minimum wages for a skilled worker, a multiplier of 18, and a 40% addition for future prospects.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced by Rs. 1,80,924/- by applying minimum wages, a multiplier of 18, and a 40% addition for future prospects.

Shri Surendra Singh Vs Shri Ladu Singh and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2026)

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:13624]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2410/2018

¶4

Shri Surendra Singh S/o Shri Babu Singh, R/o Village Post Bayala, Police Station Beawar Sadar, Tehsil Beawar, Distt. Ajmer (Raj.)

¶5

--- -Appellant/Claimant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Shri Ladu Singh S/o Shri Ghisa Singh, R/o Village Akhawaton Ka Badia Lulva, Tehsil Masuda, Distt. Ajmer Raj. (Driver Motorcycle No. RJ-36-SC-9614)

¶8

Shri Prabhu Singh S/o Shri Guman Singh, R/o Village Bayala, Police Station Beawar Sadar, Tehsil Masuda, Distt. Ajmer Raj. (Registered Owner Motorcycle No. RJ-36-SC-9614)

¶9

United India Insurance Company Limited, Hotel Gokulam, Ajmer Road, Beawar Distt. Ajmer. Insured Through Policy No. 141201/31/10/01/00017447 Dated 11.03.2011 To 10.03.2012 (Insurance Company Motorcycle No. RJ-36-SC-9614)

¶10

---- Respondents/Non-claimants

¶11

For Appellant(s)	: Mr.	Akshay	Sharma with
	Mr.	Sparsh	Bansal
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Mukesh	Kumar Goyal

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA

¶13

Order

¶14

01/04/2026

¶15

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 06.11.2017, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (ADJ No. 3) Beawar, Ajmer (for short ‘Tribunal’) in MAC Case No.353/2014 (135/2012) whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant was partly allowed.

¶16

The brief facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that the claimant filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal stating therein that on 02.01.2012, at 6:00 PM when the claimant was going on a

[2026:RJ-JP:13624]

[CMA-2410/2018]

(2 of 6)

motorcycle, another motorcycle bearing registration No.RJ-36-SC-9614, being driven by the respondent No.1 in rash and negligent manner, hit the claimant and due to said accident, the claimant sustained grievous injures.

¶21

Thereafter, a claim petition was filed by the claimant seeking compensation of Rs.16,30,000/-, by alleging that at the time of said accident, the age of injured was 14 years.

¶22

On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed issues and after evaluating the evidence on record, the claim petition was partly allowed and a compensation of Rs. 1,46,700/- was awarded in favour of the claimant along with interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of filing of the claim petition till the recovery of the amount.

¶23

Being dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, this appeal has been preferred by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation so awarded.

¶24

Learned counsel for the claimant has made the following three submissions:-

¶25

i. The learned Tribunal has erred in not awarding compensation under the head of loss of earning capacity, however, compensation under the said head should have been awarded by calculating it on the basis of minimum wages notified for skilled worker for the relevant point of time.

¶26

ii. While calculating the compensation under the head of loss of earning capacity, multiplier of 18 should be applied.

¶27

iii. An addition @ 40% should also be made in the income of the claimant towards future prospects.

¶28

6.1 No other ground has been raised by the learned counsel for the claimant for enhancement of the compensation so awarded.

[2026:RJ-JP:13624]

[CMA-2410/2018]

(3 of 6)

6.2 In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied upon the following judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court:-

¶33

i. Master Ayush Vs. The Branch Manager Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., reported in (2022) 7 SCC 738.

¶34

ii. Sakshi Greola Vs. Manzoor Ahmad Simon & Ors., reported in (2024) 12 SCR 958.

¶35

iii. Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel Vs. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 10278/2025, decided on 08.08.2025.

¶36

Learned counsel for the respondent - Insurance Company has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the claimant and has submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is just and reasonable, therefore, requires no interference by this Court. He has further submitted that in the case of a minor child upto the age of 15 years, multiplier of 15 should be applied as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Divya Vs.

¶37

The National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. reported in (2024) 12 SCC 436 .

¶38

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶39

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel (supra) 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:-

¶40

“9. On the aspect of monthly income of the minor appellant, we are inclined to interfere with the

(4 of 6)

[2026:RJ-JP:13624]

[CMA-2410/2018]

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......”

¶45

In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that compensation under the head of loss of earning capacity will be awarded on the basis of minimum wages payable to a skilled workman. Undisputedly, at the time of accident, minimum wages, as notified by the State Government, for a skilled workman were Rs.155/- per day, hence, the monthly income of the deceased would amount to Rs.4650/-.

¶46

So far as the applicability of the multiplier is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the cases of Master Ayush (supra), Sakshi Greola (supra), and Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel (supra), applied the multiplier of 18 and all these cases also pertains to the injuries sustained by minors in motor accident.

¶47

10.1 Recently, a Coordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur, in the case of Mukesh Vs. Prithvi Singh & Anr., S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1486/2004 , decided on 11.02.2026 , has also applied multiplier of 18 in the case of injury inflicted upon a minor on account of motor accident.

¶48

10.2 Relying upon the above judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, and looking to the

[2026:RJ-JP:13624]

[CMA-2410/2018]

(5 of 6)

fact that the present case is also an injury case, this Court deems it appropriate to apply the multiplier of 18.

¶53

Moreover, in view of the guidelines 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 , this Court is of the opinion that since the age of the injured at the time of occurrence of accident was 14 years, an addition @ 40% will be made in the income of the deceased towards future prospects while calculating the compensation for the loss of earning capacity.

¶54

Thus, in view of the above discussion, the compensation payable to the claimant is re-computed as under:-

¶55

S.No.	Particular	Amount assessed
1.	Monthly Income	Rs.155 x 30 = Rs.4,650 /-
2.	Annual Income	Rs.4,650 x 12 = Rs.55,800 /-
3.	According to the age of the injured i.e. 14 years, multiplier 18 to be applied	Rs.55,800 x 18 = Rs.10,04,400 /-
4.	Add 40% towards future prospects (+)	Rs.10,04,400 + Rs.4,01,760 = Rs.14,06,160 /-
5.	Loss of earning capacity (15% disability, as determined by the learned Tribunal)	Rs.14,06,160 x 15% = Rs.2,10,924/-
6.	Medical Bills & Bed Charges (as awarded by the learned Tribunal)	Rs.91,700/-
7.	Transportation Charges (as awarded by the learned Tribunal)	Rs.5000/-
8.	Pain and Suffering and Nutritious Food (as awarded by the learned Tribunal)	Rs.20,000/-
	Total compensation (S.No.5+6+7+8)	Rs.3,27,624/-
	Less amount awarded by the Tribunal(-)	Rs.1,46,700/-
	Enhanced amount of compensation	Rs.3,27,624 – Rs.1,46,700 =Rs. 1,80,924/-

[2026:RJ-JP:13624]

[CMA-2410/2018]

(6 of 6)

Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is enhanced by Rs.1,80,924/- . The rest of the impugned award shall remain intact. The respondents are directed to deposit the enhanced amount within a period of two months from today.

¶60

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.

¶61

The present appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

¶62

All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶63

(SANDEEP TANEJA),J

¶64

TN/82

Shri Surendra Singh v. Shri Ladu Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Surendra Singh v. Shri Ladu Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Basanti and Ors. Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Irsad S/O Alladeen Vs State of Rajasthan

Rashid S/O Ishra Vs State of Rajasthan

Savitri Devi and Anr. Vs Lakshmi Devi and Ors.

I C I C I Lombard Gen Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Savitri Devi and Others

Asha Sharma W/O Shri Vishwanath Gautam Vs Surendra Singh S/O Balveer Singh