The accident left Patel with severe neurological and facial injuries resulting in 100% functional disability. The claimant argued that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had grossly undervalued his future earning capacity and ignored several heads of compensation despite medical evidence showing lifelong dependence on others.

The insurance company resisted enhancement, contending that the boy was only a student and had no income at the time of the accident and that the Tribunal had already awarded just compensation. Rejecting the insurer’s stand, the HC held that the Tribunal “ought to have assessed the income of the claimant-appellant herein as per minimum wages prevalent at the time of accident” and added 40% future prospects.

The court accepted medical evidence showing that the claimant had become “wholly dependent upon his family members and/or an attendant for his day-to-day activities” and required care “on a round-the-clock basis.” The medical evidence showed the claimant suffered irreversible organic brain damage, emotional disturbances, loss of temper, behavioural abnormalities, vision impairment, jaw deformity affecting eating, and the need for anticonvulsant medication “for many years, may be lifetime.”

Relying on the SC judgment on compensation for children and young persons who suffer life-altering injuries in motor accidents, the Gujarat HC recorded that the teenager had suffered “immense pain, shock, suffering and mental agony.”

The court observed that compensation in such cases can be awarded only once and therefore courts should “take a liberal view of the matter when awarding compensation.” The HC also recognised the effect of the injuries on the claimant’s personal life, holding that the disability had “undoubtedly had a substantial adverse impact on his prospects of leading a normal social and personal life, including his prospects of marriage.”

In his submission, the claimant had also stated that in the absence of documentary proof of income, the Tribunal “ought to have adopted the minimum wages prevalent for a skilled worker at the time of accident, namely Rs 3880 per month” and that the “Tribunal wrongly assessed his income at Rs 18,000 per annum inclusive of future prospects.”

The court directed the insurer to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest before the Tribunal within six weeks and ordered disbursement to the claimant after verification.