Chhattisgarh High Court raises compensation to ₹25 lakh for 3-year-old who lost a leg in a crash, including prosthetic costs

In a road accident on 24 October 2018, three-year-old Shweta Suryavanshi suffered serious injuries requiring amputation of her left leg from the thigh.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of ₹13,84,990.

Her father and she appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement, including compensation for a prosthetic limb, future treatment, and other heads of loss

The disability certificate assessed permanent disability at 80%, while the Tribunal assessed it at 70%.

Whether the Tribunal’s compensation for the minor’s injuries and their consequences required enhancement, including under non-pecuniary heads

Whether compensation should be awarded for the cost, maintenance, and replacement of a prosthetic limb, and for future medical expenses?

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for an appeal against an award of the Claims Tribunal

In Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., as discussed in Rina Rani Mallick v. Susim Kanti Mohanty, the Supreme Court held that compensation for a child with permanent disability must include appropriate non-pecuniary damages, in addition to actual treatment and related expenses, having regard to pain, deprivation of ordinary pleasures, and the need to address disability-related hardship.

In Shankar Dutt v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., the Supreme Court recognised that reasonable pecuniary compensation may be awarded for the purchase, repair, and maintenance of a prosthetic limb over the claimant’s lifetime.

The governing principle is that compensation must be just and fair, having regard to the injury, its lasting effects, and the claimant’s reasonable future needs.

The Court found that the minor’s thigh-level amputation, 30-day hospitalisation, and lifelong need for an artificial limb warranted compensation beyond the Tribunal’s award.

Applying the principles in Rina Rani and Shankar Dutt, it awarded ₹5,00,000 for the prosthetic limb, including maintenance and replacement, and ₹1,00,000 for future medical expenses.

It also considered the severity and continuing consequences of the injury, the father’s caregiving and resulting loss of income, and expenses for which receipts might not be available; it therefore enhanced amounts for medical expenses, nutritious diet, transport, future earnings, loss of amenities, and marriage prospects.

The Court otherwise left the Tribunal’s disability assessment undisturbed.

The total compensation was enhanced from ₹13,84,990 to ₹25,05,800, making the additional amount payable ₹11,20,810.

The enhanced amount carries interest at 6% per annum from the date the claim petition was filed until realisation; the remaining terms of the Tribunal’s award were left unchanged.