Catastrophically disabled child’s compensation raised to ₹83.38 lakh; Supreme Court treats functional disability as 100% and awards lifelong care costs

On 16.06.2015, a tanker driven rashly and negligently collided with the Hyundai i-10 car in which the six-month-old claimant, Shreejita Pattnaik, was travelling with her parents.

She suffered severe spinal-cord and neurological injuries and was subsequently diagnosed with post-traumatic myelopathy with paraplegia and 90% permanent locomotor disability.

The medical evidence established that she would require lifelong medication, care, supervision and assistance, and would remain dependent on others for basic activities.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held the tanker’s driver negligent and the insurer liable.

It awarded ₹30,12,960 with interest at 6% per annum, including compensation for medical expenses, future medical treatment, attendant charges, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, loss of marriage prospects and future earnings.

On appeal, the High Court enhanced the compensation to ₹45,40,800, but reduced the multiplier from 18 to 15 and awarded additional amounts under various non-pecuniary heads.

The claimant, through her mother and natural guardian, sought further enhancement before the Supreme Court.

Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 requires the Claims Tribunal to award compensation that is “just,” meaning fair, reasonable, equitable and neither a windfall nor a pittance.

The Court relied on Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty, Syed Basheer Ahamed v. Mohammed Jameel and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi for the principles that compensation cannot be calculated with mathematical precision but must approximate fairness and reasonableness.

Under R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, compensation in injury cases covers both pecuniary losses—such as medical expenses, future earnings and future treatment—and non-pecuniary losses, including pain, suffering, loss of amenities, loss of expectation of life and loss of marriage prospects.

In cases of catastrophic childhood disability, Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, Master Ayush v. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmed Simon, Divya v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari and Hansraj v. Mukesh Nath require a liberal, realistic and humane assessment of the child’s lifelong deprivation, dependence and future care requirements.

For a permanently disabled child, the minimum wages of a skilled worker may be adopted instead of a nominal notional income, and the multiplier method applies to future earnings and attendant charges.

The Court held that the claimant’s injury was not an ordinary partial disability but a catastrophic, permanent and irreversible condition that had destroyed the normal course of her life.

Although the medical certificate assessed physical disability at 90%, the evidence showed that she could not independently perform basic activities or pursue any occupation; consequently, her functional disability and loss of earning capacity were 100%.

The Court restored the multiplier of 18, following the recent approach in Kajal, Baby Sakshi Greola and Hansraj, rather than the multiplier of 15 applied by the High Court.

Since the accident occurred before the applicable 2015 notification, the Court adopted the skilled-worker wage under the earlier Odisha notifications—₹192.50 per day, or ₹69,300 annually—added 40% for future prospects, applied the multiplier of 18, and awarded ₹17,46,360 for loss of future earnings.

Given the claimant’s lifelong dependence, the Court calculated attendant charges on the basis of two attendants at ₹6,000 per month each and applied the multiplier of 18, awarding ₹25,92,000.

It enhanced the combined amount for pain, suffering, loss of amenities and loss of marriage prospects to ₹25,00,000, taking into account the claimant’s infancy, permanent paraplegia, loss of childhood and deprivation of a normal adult life.

It further enhanced future medical treatment to ₹10,00,000 and conveyance and special diet to ₹2,00,000, while maintaining medical expenses at ₹3,00,000.

Applying the principle that compensation must be awarded once and must reasonably account for future and lifelong consequences, the Court found the High Court’s award inadequate.

It enhanced the total compensation from ₹45,40,800 to ₹83,38,360, comprising ₹17,46,360 for loss of future earnings, ₹25,92,000 for attendant charges, ₹25,00,000 for pain, suffering, loss of amenities and loss of marriage prospects, ₹3,00,000 for medical expenses, ₹10,00,000 for future medical treatment, and ₹2,00,000 for conveyance and special diet.

The insurer was directed to deposit the entire compensation with accrued interest within six weeks before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuttack.

Interest was enhanced to 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization.

The appeal was accordingly allowed, with no order as to costs.