Enhancement of compensation and future attendant charges for a minor suffering 100% permanent disability.

On November 8, 2016, the appellant, then a fourteen-year-old pillion rider, sustained grievous injuries—including fractures and damage to his neck, head, and backbone—when the motorcycle driven by the first respondent hit a tractor-trolley.

The accident resulted in 100% permanent disability and a 203-day hospitalization.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded ₹7,76,543/-.

On appeal, the Rajasthan High Court enhanced this to ₹12,17,543/-, calculating notional income at ₹30,000/- per annum.

The appellant approached the Supreme Court seeking further enhancement, contending that the notional income and attendant charges were grossly inadequate given his lifelong total disability.

1. Whether the notional income and future prospects determined by the High Court were sufficient for a minor claimant with 100% permanent disability.

2. Whether the compensation awarded for attendant charges, pain and suffering, and future medical expenses was just and reasonable given the requirement for lifelong care.

The Court applied Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 regarding compensation claims.

Notional income for a minor/non-earning individual should be grounded in the minimum wages of a skilled workman at the time of the accident (₹5,746/- per month in Rajasthan, 2016).

The Court followed the precedents in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari, which establish that claimants with 100% disability are entitled to future prospects (40% for those below 40 years) and costs for round-the-clock attendants (calculated via multipliers).

The Court found the High Court’s assessment of ₹30,000/- annual income to be erroneously low. It recalculated the income based on prevailing minimum wages for a skilled workman (rounded to ₹5,800/- monthly), adding 40% for future prospects and applying a multiplier of 18.

Regarding attendant charges, the Court noted that a person with 100% permanent disability requires two attendants for 24-hour care; it thus calculated this head using the minimum wage of a semi-skilled worker (₹5,000/- per month), multiplied across the appellant’s life expectancy.

The Court determined that the heads of "pain and suffering," "loss of amenities," and "loss of marriage prospects" required substantial upward revision to reflect the permanent loss of quality of life.

The Court directed that while 25% of the attendant charges (₹21,60,000/-) be released immediately, the remaining 75% must be placed in a fixed deposit, with annual payouts of ₹1,50,000/- to the appellant to ensure sustained funding for lifelong care.