100% disability in minors requires notional income based on skilled wages plus future prospects and non-pecuniary damages.

On November 1, 2009, the appellant, then a 16-year-old student, was a pillion rider on an Activa when a motorcycle driven by Opponent No. 1 collided with them due to rash and negligent driving

The appellant sustained severe brain damage, skull fractures, and facio-maxillary injuries, resulting in 100% functional disability

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Kheda, awarded Rs. 9,04,000/- with 8% interest, assessing the appellant’s notional income at a flat Rs. 18,000/- per annum

The appellant moved the High Court seeking enhancement, arguing that the income should be based on minimum wages and that the Tribunal failed to award compensation for future medical expenses, attendant charges, and loss of marriage prospects

The court applied the principles of "just compensation" under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680] to grant a 40% addition for future prospects

Regarding 100% disability in minors, the court followed Sidram v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [2022 INSC 1202] and Kajal v. Jagdish Chand [(2020) 4 SCC 413] as cited in Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon [2024 SCC Online SC 3692], establishing that compensation for pain, suffering, and loss of amenities must be liberal and inclusive of mental agony

It further applied the rule from Baby Sakshi Greola that life-long dependency requires compensation for "skilled" attendants based on minimum wages

The court found the Tribunal’s assessment of Rs. 18,000/- annual income inadequate. It ruled that for a 16-year-old student in 2009, the income must be pegged to the minimum wage of a "skilled worker" (Rs. 3,880/- per month), supplemented by a 40% increase for future prospects

Applying a multiplier of 18, the future loss of income was recalculated. The court highlighted medical evidence (Exhs. 33 & 34) showing irreversible organic brain damage, necessitating anti-convulsant drugs for life and round-the-clock care

Consequently, it held that the appellant was entitled to separate heads for skilled attendant charges and future medical expenses, which the Tribunal had overlooked

Recognizing that the injury resulted in a "vegetable existence" and loss of normal social life, the court significantly enhanced the award for pain and suffering and added compensation for loss of marriage prospects and amenities

The court held that the appellant is entitled to an additional sum of Rs. 30,77,392/- with 8% interest per annum from the date of the claim petition

Specific awards included Rs. 11,73,312/- for future income, Rs. 8,38,080/- for attendant charges, Rs. 8,00,000/- for pain and suffering, and Rs. 3,00,000/- for loss of marriage prospects

The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the additional amount within six weeks