Gujarat High Court
The National Insurance Company Limited vs Minor Vaibhav Rajubhai Dodiya on 24 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/5054/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 5054 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
============================================
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
Versus
MINOR VAIBHAV RAJUBHAI DODIYA & ORS.
============================================
Appearance:
MASUMI V NANAVATY(9321) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
FRESH RULE SERVED(4513) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 3
============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 24/02/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1) Present appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellant - original opponent no.3 - Insurance Company, against the common judgment and award dated 14.09.2022 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi), Anand in MAC Petition No.701 of 2017.
2) Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. Page 1 of 8 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Wed Feb 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 26 02:50:17 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/5054/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2026 undefined
3) The brief facts of the case of the original claimant are that on 05.12.2017, the minor Vaibhav Rajubhai Dodiya - original applicant along with his father were going from Surat to Gariyadhar by travelling in Luxury Bus bearing Reg. No.GJ-14-X- 3222, being driven by its driver and when they reached in the sim of village Mujkuva, on Anklav - Sodar road, at that time, the driver of another Luxury Bus bearing Reg. No.GJ-03-W-9841, came by driving the said luxury bus in rash and negligent manner and dashed his luxury bus with luxury bus bearing Reg. No.GJ-14-X-3222, due to which the applicant sustained grievous injuries. Therefore, the appellant had filed MAC Petition seeking compensation, wherein, the learned Tribunal after appreciating the evidence produced on record held both the drivers of both luxury buses equally negligent and partly allowed the claim petition.
4) The learned Advocate for the appellant - Insurance Company has submitted that the Tribunal has committed error while applying multiplier of 18 instead of 15 as injured claimant was 13 years old at the time of accident. He has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Reshma Kumari vs Madan Mohan, reported in 2013 (9) SCC 65, and Miss Rushi @ Ruchi Thapa Vs. M/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2024 (0) AIJEL-SC 74187 and requested to Page 2 of 8 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Wed Feb 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 26 02:50:17 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/5054/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2026 undefined allow the present appeal.
5) The learned Advocate for the respondent no.1 - original claimant has opposed the present appeal and submitted that the learned Tribunal has properly appreciated the evidence produced on record and question does not arise to follow the ratio laid down in the judgment of Master Mallikarjun vs. Divisional Manager, The National Ins. Co. Ltd., reported in (2014) 14 SCC 396, and requested to dismiss the present appeal.
6) Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties, it appears that involvement of the vehicles, negligence, liability and coverage of the policy are not disputed and the present appeal is mainly filed on the ground that the learned Tribunal has wrongly applied multiplier of 18 which ought to have been multiplier of 15. The learned Advocate for the appellant has relied on Reshma (supra) wherein, the judgment of Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [2009 (6) SCC 121] came to be followed and relied on the standard method for applying multiplier is discussed and same has also been reiterated in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 ACJ 2700, more particularly in paragraph 43 and thereafter in paragraph 59.2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the judgment in Rajesh Vs. Rajbir Singh, reported in (2013) 9 Page 3 of 8 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Wed Feb 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 26 02:50:17 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/5054/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2026 undefined SCC 121, has not taken a note of the decision in Reshma Kumari (supra) which was challenged at the earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh (supra) is not a binding precedent. Thereafter, this Court in case of Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Akshar Education Foundation & Anr, Neutral Citation 2025:GUJHC:67085, has observed that the insurance company to apply multiplier of 15 more particularly considering the nature of injury and age of the victim, as she is minor and has sustained the 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 loss caused by such deprivation which can be termed as "just compensation"
as insured / injured claimant has to face the consequences throughout her life and that should not be any token damages.
7) 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:
Page 4 of 8 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Wed Feb 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 26 02:50:17 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/5054/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2026 undefined "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.
xxx xxx xxx
12. The assessment 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.
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 Page 5 of 8 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Wed Feb 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 26 02:50:17 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/5054/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2026 undefined 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."
8) Thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case of minor had considered multiplier of 18. As the learned Tribunal has relied on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kajal (Supra), no error has been committed by the learned Tribunal in considering the injury to the minor in relying on the decision in the case of Kajal (Supra).
9) Further, the compensation has to be awarded once and for all as victim is not at fault and it is the duty of the Tribunal to award just compensation. Considering overall facts and circumstances Page 6 of 8 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Wed Feb 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 26 02:50:17 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/5054/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2026 undefined relating to treatment, mental agony, pain, disablement, loss of wages and expenditure in the hospital for nutritious diet and other expenditure incurred by the family members and other charges for attendant is also required to be considered. Considering the disablement and mental pain, shock and suffering qua loss of amenities, learned Tribunal has properly considered all the aspects and awarded just compensation on the head of non-pecuniary damages also. It is also pertinent to note that adopting a sensitive approach is crucial for the Tribunal. It plays a key and vital role in ensuring not only justice to the victim of the motor accident but also to determine just and fair compensation. The Tribunal is expected to have empathy and to prevent subsequent trauma by taking a sensitive approach to feeling the pain of the victim of the road accident because the victim of the road accident and their family often deal with physical and emotional trauma and an empathetic approach can provide them a sense of support and understanding.
10) Hence, in view of above, the judgment in case of Miss Rushi (supra) relied by the learned Advocate for the appellant would not avail any assistance more particularly Master Ayush (supra) and Kajal (supra) are referred in the said judgment were considered only for calculation of compensation and Page 7 of 8 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Wed Feb 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 26 02:50:17 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/5054/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2026 undefined nowhere it was discussed about the application of multiplier. Therefore, said judgment is having distinguishable facts and would not avail any assistance to the learned Advocate for the appellant and hence the arguments of the learned Advocate for the appellant is not acceptable.
11) In view of above, no interference is required as the learned Tribunal has not committed any error while passing the impugned judgment and award. Accordingly, present appeal is dismissed.
12) Record and proceedings, if any, be remitted back to the concerned Tribunal. Pending civil applications, if any, also shall stand disposed of accordingly.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) ANKIT JANSARI Page 8 of 8 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Wed Feb 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 26 02:50:17 IST 2026