14-Year-Old Accident Victim’s Compensation Raised To ₹36.15 Lakh As P&H HC Rejects Insurer’s Bid To Deduct ₹4 Lakh Mediclaim

On 3 December 2014, 14-year-old student Tushar Yadav was seriously injured when a car struck him and a friend while they were standing beside the road.

He was hospitalised for approximately 65–66 days and sustained permanent disability.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal assessed his functional disability at 40% and awarded ₹22,20,000, including medical expenses, transportation, and lump sums for future prospects, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities.

The insurer appealed, arguing that ₹4,00,000 received under a personal medical-insurance policy should be deducted; Tushar, through his legal representatives, appealed for enhanced compensation.

The High Court considered both appeals together; Tushar died during their pendency.

The Court relied on New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Dolly Satish Gandhi, 2026 (3) RCR (Civil) 135, holding that benefits under a personal medical-insurance policy are contractual and cannot be deducted from statutory motor-accident compensation.

Applying Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3446, it treated the minimum wages of a skilled worker in the relevant State as the appropriate income benchmark for a minor with permanent disability.

Under Pappu Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar, 2022 (13) SCC 790, read with National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (4) RCR (Civil) 1009, a permanently disabled claimant may receive compensation for both loss of future earnings and future prospects.

Compensation for personal injury may also include pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads, including treatment, attendant expenses, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and loss of marriage prospects, as discussed through Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Kajal v. Jagdish Chand.

The Court rejected the insurer’s deduction argument because the medical-insurance payment arose from a separate contractual policy for which premiums had been paid, and did not displace the claimant’s statutory entitlement to just compensation.

For enhancement, it adopted Haryana’s skilled-worker minimum wage of ₹6,159 per month, added 40% for future prospects, and applied a 40% functional-disability assessment and multiplier of 18 to calculate loss of future earnings.

Given the claimant’s prolonged hospitalisation, permanent disability, and resulting impact on daily life and marriage prospects, the Court also awarded amounts for attendant charges, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and loss of marriage prospects.

The claimant’s appeal, FAO-5626-2017, was allowed, and the compensation was reassessed at ₹36,14,991, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition until realisation.

The driver, owner, and insurer were directed to deposit the enhanced compensation, jointly and severally, within two months; the Tribunal was directed to disburse it in equal shares to the claimant’s legal representatives.