Rina Rani Mallick vs. Susim Kanti Mohanty

Non-Reportable
2025 INSC 602



IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Special Leave Petition (C) No.17267 of 2024


RINA RANI MALLICK
PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
SUSIM KANTI MOHANTY & ANR.
RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G E M E N T

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

1. This Special Leave Petition is filed against the order
dated 21.08.2023 of the High Court of Orissa which
enhanced the compensation granted to the minor child of
the appellant for the injury suffered in a motor vehicle
accident leading to amputation and permanent disability of
the minor child.
2. The petitioner seeks further enhancement of the
compensation. The motor accident occurred when the
minor child along with her father and mother (appellant),
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Jayant Kumar Arora
Date: 2025.04.30
16:14:02 IST
Reason:
was travelling in a bus which hit against a tractor. Though,
Page 1 of 5
SLP (C) No. 17267 of 2024


composite negligence was found, respondent No.2 was
directed to pay the entire compensation. Finding the case to
be one of joint tortfeasors, it was held that the claimant could
proceed jointly or severely against all of them or either of
them. The insurer has not filed an appeal, and we are only
concerned with the quantum.
3. The child was a four-year-old who suffered 55%
disability as per the certificate produced as Annexure P2.
The diagnosis was of locomotor disability due to
disarticulation at ankle joint. The child had been subjected
to below knee amputation of the right leg. The Tribunal
awarded a total compensation of Rs.20,03,328/- in the
following manner:-

Page 2 of 5
SLP (C) No. 17267 of 2024


4. The High Court enhanced it with Rs.7 lakhs
considering the inadequate amounts granted towards future
treatment, dependent charges and the amounts granted
towards other heads.
5. In this context, we have noticed a decision of this Court
in Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance
1
Company Limited , wherein a 12-year-old child in the
accident suffered permanent disability of 34% of right lower
limb and 18% to the whole body. This Court emphasising
the fact that there could be no income for children and the
notional income of Rs.15,000/- as per the second schedule,
found that the compensation awarded on that basis would
be inadequate. It was held that the compensation in such
circumstances has to be under the non-pecuniary heads in
addition to the actual amounts for treatment done,
transportation, assistance of attendant, etc. Considering the
fact that the main element of damage in the case of child
victim is the pain, shock, frustration, deprivation of ordinary
pleasures and enjoyment associated with healthy and
mobile limbs, it was held that compensation should enable

1
(2014) 14 SCC 396
Page 3 of 5
SLP (C) No. 17267 of 2024


the child to develop in such a manner as to offset, at least, to
some extent, the inconvenience or discomfort arising out of
the disability.
6. It was held that in addition to the heads for treatment,
attendant expenses, etc. if the disability is above 10% and
upto 30% Rs.3 lakhs; upto 60%, Rs.4 lakhs; upto 90%, Rs.5
lakhs and above 90%, it should be Rs.6 lakhs. A total of
Rs.3,75,000/- was awarded in the said case.
7. Following the above cited decisions, this Court in
2
Kumari Kiran v. Sajjan Singh , in the case of two children
having respectively suffered the disability of 30% and
20%awarded a further sum of Rs.1 lakh in addition to Rs.3
lakhs determined in Mallikarjun (supra). The children
were awarded Rs.5,43,844/- and Rs.5,58,876/-.
8. In the present case, disability is 55% and, in such
circumstance, pecuniary compensation of Rs.4 lakhs is
adequate as per the cited decision. However, in the present
case, the Tribunal has adopted an income looking at the
minimum wages and awarded a sum of Rs.10,67,774/-. The
actual expenses relating to treatment was also awarded in

2
(2015) 1 SCC 539
Page 4 of 5
SLP (C) No. 17267 of 2024


addition to Rs.50% for future treatment. There were also
additional amounts granted as seen from the tabulation
above. In addition to this, the High Court had enhanced the
amount with Rs.7 lakhs, thus, awarding a total compensation
of Rs.27,03,328/- with simple interest @ 6% per annum.
9. We are of the opinion that there is no scope for any
further enhancement in this case. The amount granted is far
higher, that was granted in the two cited decisions.
10. The Special Leave Petition stands dismissed.
11. Pending application, if any, shall also stand disposed
of.

………….……………………. J.
(SUDHANSHU DHULIA)


………….……………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)

NEW DELHI;
APRIL 30, 2025.
Page 5 of 5
SLP (C) No. 17267 of 2024