Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Another, 2025
The Court reaffirmed the principle that minors should not be deprived of fair compensation merely because they do not have income at the time of the accident.
Judgement Details
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision
6 September 2025
Judges
Justice Sanjay Karol & Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Facts of the Case
-
The case concerns a minor child (8 years old) who suffered 90% permanent disability in a motor vehicle accident in 2012 in Gujarat.
-
The Gujarat High Court awarded compensation of ₹8.65 lakhs, treating the minor as a non-earning individual, thereby excluding loss of income in the compensation calculation.
-
The appellant challenged this classification before the Supreme Court, seeking enhanced compensation.
Issues
-
Can a minor child be classified as a non-earning individual for the purpose of assessing compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act?
-
What is the appropriate notional income to be considered for a minor in such cases?
-
Whether the insurance company has an obligation to furnish the minimum wage schedule when income details are not available?
-
What are the appropriate heads under which non-pecuniary damages (e.g., pain, suffering, loss of marriage prospects) should be calculated?
Held
-
The Minor victims of accidents must not be equated with non-earning persons.
-
The Compensation must be computed using the minimum wage of skilled workers in the relevant state.
-
The insurance company bears the burden of supplying minimum wage data in the absence of income proof.
-
The Enhanced compensation was awarded across both pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads, totaling ₹35.90 lakhs, including:
-
₹6,836/month notional income
-
40% future prospects
-
90% permanent disability
-
₹5 lakh – Pain and suffering
-
₹3 lakh – Loss of marriage prospects
-
₹5 lakh – Cost of artificial limb
-
Analysis
-
This ruling reshapes the legal framework around notional income for minors in motor accident cases.
-
The Court reaffirmed the principle that minors should not be deprived of fair compensation merely because they do not have income at the time of the accident.
-
The judgment bridges the gap between potential and presumed earnings and ensures dignity and just recompense for young victims.
-
It also places a procedural burden on insurance companies, making it their responsibility to provide minimum wage schedules ensuring that claimants are not denied justice due to lack of income proof.
-
The direction to circulate the judgment across MACTs ensures uniform application of this principle nationwide.