[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
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.
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
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
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:
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
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
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
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
