Hansraj vs Mukesh Nath

2026 INSC 454 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026 (@ SLP (C) NO.13122 OF 2024)

HANSRAJ APPELLANT

VERSUS

MUKESH NATH AND OTHERS RESPONDENTS

JUDGMENT

ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal has been preferred by the claimant who is not

satisfied with the partial enhancement in the amount of

compensation as awarded by the learned Single Judge of the

Rajasthan High Court1 pursuant to the judgment dated

09.04.2024 in S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1334 of 2022.

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NIDHI AHUJA Date: 2026.05.06 17:40:06 IST Reason: 1 In short, “the High Court”

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.13122 of 2024 Page 1 of 11

3. According to the appellant, on 08.11.2016 he alongwith his

friend were riding on a motorcycle on Mundoita Kalawar Road. The

appellant was aged about fourteen years and was a pillion rider.

The first respondent drove the motorcycle in a negligent manner

due to which the motorcycle hit the rear portion of a tractor trolley.

The appellant fell down and suffered grievous injuries on his neck,

head, backbone and also suffered fractures. As a result of the said

accident, the appellant was required to be hospitalized for about

203 days. He suffered 100% permanent disability on account of

the said accident. He, therefore, preferred a claim petition under

Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 19882 seeking compensation of

an amount of ₹22,45,000/- before the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal3. Since the said motorcycle was owned by the second

respondent and was insured with the third respondent, the claim

for compensation was made against all of them.

4. The driver of the motorcycle as well as its owner did not file

their written statements and were accordingly proceeded against

ex parte. On behalf of the third respondent - Insurance Company,

written statement was filed denying the claim as made. Before the

2 For short, ‘the said Act’ 3 For short, ‘the Claims Tribunal’

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.13122 of 2024 Page 2 of 11 Claims Tribunal, the appellant examined his father – Pawan

Kumar and another witness, Kamlesh Kumar Sharma. On behalf

of the Insurance Company, Hiralal Bambi came to be examined.

The learned Judge of the Claims Tribunal after considering the

entire material on record and after appreciating the evidence led

by the parties was pleased to award compensation of an amount

of ₹7,76,543/- in the following manner:-

1 In the Head of loss of income ₹4,80,000/- 2 Medical expenses ₹49,743/-

3 Attendant expense ₹1,21,800/-

4 In the Head of Surgery ₹5,000/-

5 In the Head of transportation ₹10,000/- 6 In the Head of Nutrition ₹10,000/-

7 Bodily, mental agony ₹1,00,000/-

Total ₹7,76,543/-

5. The appellant not being satisfied with the quantum of

compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal preferred an appeal

under Section 173 of the said Act. The Insurance Company did not

challenge the findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal as regards

its liability to satisfy the claim for compensation. As a result, the

said findings became final. The High Court, thus, considered the

prayer for enhancement in the amount of compensation. While

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.13122 of 2024 Page 3 of 11 partly allowing the appeal, the High Court enhanced the amount

of compensation in the following manner:-

Annual Income ₹30,000/-

Loss of Income viz-a-viz 100% ₹30,000 x 100% = ₹30,000/-

permanent disability According to the age of the ₹30,000 x 18 =5,40,000/- claimant, Multiplier of 18 shall be applied Future Prospects (40% of the ₹5,40,000 x 40% =2,16,000/- claimant’s income) (5,40,000+2,16,000=7,56,000/-

Medical Bills ₹49,743/-

Attendant Charges ₹1,21,800/-

Under the head of Operation ₹20,000/-

Transportation ₹10,000/-

Nutritional diet ₹10,000/-

Mental Agony ₹1,00,000/-

Loss of marriage prospects ₹1,00,000/-

Future medical treatment ₹50,000/-

Total ₹12,17,543/-

Less amount awarded by the ₹7,76,543/- Tribunal Enhanced Amount of ₹12,17,543 – ₹7,76,543 = compensation ₹4,41,000/-

The total enhancement thus granted by the High Court was

₹4,41,000/-. The appellant not being satisfied with the partial

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.13122 of 2024 Page 4 of 11 enhancement in the amount of compensation has preferred this

appeal.

6. Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant

submitted that considering the age of the appellant, which was

fourteen years when the accident took place, the notional income

considered by the High Court was on a lower side. Placing reliance

on the decision in Kumari Laxmisree Vs. The Managing

Director, KSRCTC Depot, Bengaluru4, it was submitted that

notional income ought to have been taken at ₹10,000/- per month.

The fact that the appellant suffered 100% disability of a permanent

nature, the attendant charges as awarded were on a lower side.

Referring to the evidence on record, it was submitted that the

appellant was in need of continuous assistance during the entire

day. Considering his young age, he was required to seek such

assistance for his entire life. It was further submitted that further

enhancement on account of pain and suffering as well as loss of

amenities ought to be granted considering the nature of injuries

suffered by the appellant. He also sought enhancement in the

amount of future medical expenses, compensation due to loss of

prospects of marriage, towards special diet and transportation. In

4 C.A. No.4493/2025 dated 05.03.2025

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.13122 of 2024 Page 5 of 11 that regard, he also referred to the decisions in Hitesh Nagjibhai

Patel Vs. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari and another5 and Kajal Vs.

Jagdish Chand and others6. It was, thus, submitted that the

appellant was entitled to substantial enhancement in the amount

of compensation.

7. Per contra, Ms. Rita Jha, learned counsel appearing for the

Insurance Company opposed the appeal and supported the

judgment of the High Court. According to her, the notional income

of the appellant ought to be taken on the basis of minimum wages

that were payable to a skilled workman in the year 2016 when the

accident occurred. The amount of minimum wages of a skilled

workman then were ₹5,746/- per month. It was further submitted

that reasonable amounts were liable to be granted towards

attendant charges and medical expenses. The amounts claimed by

the appellant were on a higher side. The High Court after taking

into consideration all relevant aspects had rightly granted partial

enhancement in the amount of compensation and no further

enhancement was called for. She referred to the decisions in Baby

Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and another7 and

5 2025 INSC 1070 6 2020 INSC 135 7 2024 INSC 963

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.13122 of 2024 Page 6 of 11 Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel (supra). The learned counsel also referred to

the decision in Kajal (supra) and submitted that the appeal was

liable to be dismissed.

8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after

perusing the documentary material on record, we are of the

considered view that the amount of compensation as awarded by

the High Court deserves enhancement. The appellant was aged

fourteen years when the accident took place and as a result of the

same has suffered 100% permanent disability. The High Court has

considered the notional annual income as ₹30,000/-. This amount

is on a lower side. The notional income would have to be

determined on the basis of the minimum wages admissible for a

skilled workman in the State of Rajasthan in 2016. Such minimum

wages were ₹5,746/- per month. Taking the monthly notional

income at ₹5,800/-, the annual income would be ₹69,600/-.

Future prospects at 40% would make the annual income as

₹97,440/-. On the basis of the age of the appellant, multiplier of

18 has been rightly applied. On that basis, the loss of income

would come to ₹17,53,920/-.

9. Under the head of attendant charges, the High Court has

awarded sum of ₹1,21,800/-. This figure again is on a lower side.

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.13122 of 2024 Page 7 of 11 As held by this Court in Kajal (supra), the minimum wages

admissible in this regard will have to be taken. The figure of

₹5,000/- as monthly wages of a semi-skilled workman is

accordingly taken into account being the charges of an attendant

for a month. The appellant having suffered permanent disability,

he would require the assistance of two attendants round the clock.

Applying the multiplier of 18, this figure would come to

₹21,60,000/-.

Since the appellant would require the services of two

attendants for the rest of his life, part of the amount admissible

under this head would be required to be invested in fixed deposit

to enable the invested amount to carry interest so that this amount

could be utilized in future. Such investment would also take into

account any higher amount required to be paid to the attendants.

10. Insofar as the amount admissible towards medical bills and

operation of the appellant is concerned, the High Court has

awarded a sum of ₹49,743/- and ₹20,000/- respectively as per the

documentary material submitted by the appellant. No further

enhancement in this regard is called for. Insofar as mental pain

and suffering alongwith loss of amenities is concerned, the amount

₹10,00,000/- can be awarded. Towards future medical expenses,

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.13122 of 2024 Page 8 of 11 the amount deserves to be enhanced to ₹3,00,000/-. Similarly, on

account of loss of marriage prospects a sum of ₹3,00,000/-

deserves to be paid. ₹1,00,000/- deserves to be awarded under the

head of special diet and transportation.

Thus, the total amount of compensation now admissible

would be ₹56,83,663/-. This amount of compensation would carry

interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the

claim petition till the actual payment is made. Needless to state

that the interest already awarded on the amount of compensation

is required to be taken into consideration in this regard.

Accordingly, the compensation now payable to the appellant

is as under:-

HEAD COMPENSATION

Notional Income ₹5,746 p.m. - Rounded off to ₹5,800 = 5,800 x 12 = ₹69,600/-

Future ₹69,600 x 1.4 = ₹97,440/- Prospects @ 40%

Multiplier of 18 ₹97,440 x 18 = ₹17,53,920/-

Loss of Income ₹17,53,920/- Attendant ₹10,000 x 12 months x 18 multiplier = Charges ₹21,60,000/- (For 2 Attendants)

Medical Bills & ₹49,743 (As provided by MACT) + ₹20,000 for Operation operation (As provided by the HC) = ₹69,743/-

Mental Pain & ₹10,00,000/-

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.13122 of 2024 Page 9 of 11 Suffering alongwith loss of amenities Future Medical ₹3,00,000/- expenses Loss of marriage ₹3,00,000/- prospects Special Diet & ₹1,00,000/- Transportation TOTAL ₹56,83,663/-

11. Accordingly, for all these reasons the judgment of the High

Court dated 09.04.2024 in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1334 of

2022 stands modified. The appellant is held entitled to total

compensation of ₹56,83,663/- alongwith interest at the rate of 6%

per annum payable from the date of filing of the claim petition till

actual payment. The amounts already paid shall be taken into

consideration. As regards attendant charges of ₹21,60,000/-, 25%

of this amount shall be immediately released in favour of the

appellant. The remaining 75% amount shall stand invested in a

fixed deposit account to enable future attendant charges being met

herein after. Annually, an amount of ₹1,50,000/- shall be released

in favour of the appellant so that the balance amount continues to

earn interest.

The civil appeal is, accordingly, allowed in aforesaid terms

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.13122 of 2024 Page 10 of 11 leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The pending interim

application is also disposed of.

..………………………..J. [ J.K. MAHESHWARI ]

.…..………………………..J. [ATUL S. CHANDURKAR]

NEW DELHI, MAY 6, 2026.

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.13122 of 2024 Page 11 of 11