100 percent functional disability is sustainable where severe permanent injuries totally preclude a minor's future earning capacity.

The Respondent No. 1, a minor child aged two years at the time of the accident on September 18, 2021, was struck by an offending vehicle (DL-1ZD-1980) driven at high speed.

The victim sustained grievous injuries, including post-traumatic brain injury, right hemiplegia, facial nerve palsy, and vision/hearing loss, resulting in a certified 77% permanent multiple disability.

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded Rs. 74,54,467.4/- with 9% interest, assessing the child's functional disability at 100%.

The Appellant-Insurance Company challenged the award, contesting the 100% functional disability assessment and the quantum of non-pecuniary damages.

1. Whether the functional disability of the minor claimant could be assessed at 100% despite the medical certificate stating 77% permanent disability.

2. Whether the award of non-pecuniary damages totaling Rs. 13,00,000/- was excessive.

The court primarily relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343, which establishes that the Tribunal must assess the actual impact of permanent disability on the claimant’s earning capacity, distinguishing between medical disability and functional disability.

It further applied R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd. (1995) 1 SCC 551, which provides principles for awarding non-pecuniary damages (pain, suffering, and loss of amenities), emphasizing that while money cannot restore a physical frame, it must provide a "conventional sum" deemed fair by society.

The court also followed the multiplier and future prospects guidelines set in Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017).

The Court observed that assessment of functional disability is not a "one size fits all" exercise and must be done on a case-to-case basis.

In this instance, the claimant was only two years old and suffered catastrophic brain injuries and hemiplegia.

The Court reasoned that such severe injuries at a nascent stage would effectively prevent her from ever obtaining gainful employment or eking out a decent living.

Applying Raj Kumar, the Court held that the Tribunal correctly determined that the 77% medical disability translated into 100% loss of earning capacity.

Regarding non-pecuniary damages, the Court applied the Hattangadi principle, noting that for a child rendered a "helpless invalid" who has lost everything that makes life worthwhile, the judicial task is to calculate the "incalculable".

The Court found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal’s assessment given the permanent deprivation suffered at such a young age.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the MACT’s award of Rs. 74,54,467.4/- with 9% interest.

The Appellant was directed to deposit the compensation amount, and the statutory deposit was ordered to be refunded to the Appellant.