Functional disability of a minor must be assessed at 100% for injuries causing permanent neurological impairment and lifetime dependency.

On February 23, 2016, the appellant (a 5-year-old minor) was hit by a Bolero vehicle driven in a rash and negligent manner

The minor sustained severe injuries, including a brain hemorrhage, seizures, and fractures, leading to hospitalization on ventilator support and a tracheostomy

The injuries resulted in decreased intelligence (IQ of 51), hemi-paresis, and 3rd nerve palsy

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Bhuj, awarded ₹10,07,000/- by assessing a notional income of ₹36,000/- per annum and 67.53% body disability

The claimant appealed for enhancement of compensation, citing 100% functional disability

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in assessing the notional income and disability percentage of the minor claimant for calculating future loss of income

2. Whether the compensation awarded under non-pecuniary heads (pain and suffering, attendant charges, amenities) was just and adequate

The court applied Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

It relied on Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari, 2025 INSC 1070, which mandates assessing a child's loss of income based on minimum wages for skilled workers

It followed Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343, to distinguish between physical and functional disability

For future prospects, it applied Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) and Pranay Sethi (2017)

Principles for "just compensation" in cases of severe minor injuries were drawn from Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, (2020) 4 SCC 413, and Master Ayush v. Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., (2022) 7 SCC 738

The Court found the Tribunal’s assessment of ₹36,000/- annual income erroneous; per Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel, it reassessed income at ₹7,450/- per month based on 2016 minimum wages

Regarding disability, although the medical disability was 67.53%, the Court observed the minor suffered from cognitive impairment, difficulty walking, and "vegetable existence"

Applying Raj Kumar, the Court elevated this to 100% functional disability since the child is bedridden and unable to perform routine activities

Following Kajal, the Court determined that the minor requires lifetime assistance, increasing attendant charges significantly by applying the multiplier method (18 years)

Non-pecuniary heads like "Pain and Suffering" were enhanced to ₹5,00,000/- to reflect the "deep mental and emotional scars" and loss of childhood enjoyment

The Court held the claimant entitled to an additional ₹36,45,880/- with proportionate interest

Specific directions were issued to the Tribunal to invest the amount in a fixed deposit until the minor reaches majority, allowing the guardian to withdraw only interest for daily requirements and medical treatment

The disability was reassessed at 100%, monthly income at ₹7,450/-, with a 40% addition for future prospects and a multiplier of 18