A disabled child’s future earning loss is assessed using skilled-labour wages and whole-body disability.

The claimant, a six-year-old child represented by her mother, was injured when a government Tata Sumo struck her as she was walking beside the road with her aunt. She suffered a crush injury and other injuries to her left foot and leg and received inpatient treatment, including surgery.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded ₹4,12,241. The claimant appealed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement.

Whether the claimant was entitled to enhancement of compensation, including reassessment of compensation for disability-related loss and other heads.

The claim was brought under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the appeal under Section 173(1).

In assessing a child’s disability-related loss, the Court considered the principles in Master Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2013 ACJ 2445, and the Supreme Court decisions in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, (2020) 4 SCC 413, Master Ayush v. Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., (2022) 7 SCC 738, Gayatree Pattnaik for Shreejita Pattnaik v. Arundhati Sahoo, Civil Appeal No. 7067 of 2026, and Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari, Civil Appeal No. 10278 of 2025.

The Court treated the skilled-worker income and future-prospects approach in those cases as applicable to the present assessment only with appropriate regard to the claimant’s degree of disability. It applied the State minimum-wage notification for Zone IV to determine income, took one-third of the 42% limb disability as 14% whole-body disability, and applied a multiplier of 15 for a child below 15 years.

The Court accepted the doctor’s assessment of 42% disability to the claimant’s left leg and foot but, noting the possibility of improvement after corrective surgery and the absence of thigh- or shin-bone fractures, upheld the Tribunal’s conversion to 14% whole-body disability.

Because the claimant’s disability was substantially lower than that in the cited cases involving 90% or 100% disability, it declined to add future prospects.

It nevertheless reassessed future earning capacity using the Zone IV minimum monthly wage for an unskilled skilled-category worker of ₹12,989.30 and the multiplier of 15, arriving at ₹3,27,330.

It also enhanced or awarded amounts under other heads, including marriage prospects, laid-up-period income, discomfort and inconvenience, and food and nourishment, while retaining the medical and transportation expenses.

It directed the respondent identified in the order as Respondent No. 2/Insurance Company to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest within eight weeks; disbursement and deposit were to follow the Tribunal’s order.