New Delhi: The Supreme Court has substantially enhanced the compensation payable to a minor girl who suffered catastrophic spinal and neurological injuries in a motor vehicular accident at the age of six months, holding that courts assessing compensation for children with lifelong permanent disabilities must adopt "a realistic, humane" approach consistent with the principles governing 'just compensation' under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
A Bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice N.V. Anjaria, allowing the appeal filed by the injured child's mother and natural guardian, Gayatree Pattnaik, enhanced the total compensation from Rs. 45,40,800 as awarded by the High Court of Orissa to Rs. 83,38,360, together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, up from the 6% awarded below.
The appeal arose out of a motor accident on 16th June 2015, in which the injured claimant, Shreejita Pattnaik, then about six months old, was travelling with her parents in a car from Sariapada towards Sundargarh when a tanker travelling from the opposite direction, driven rashly and negligently, swerved and violently collided with their vehicle. The child and her father suffered multiple grievous injuries and were treated at several hospitals, including Apollo Hospital and Jagannath Hospital, Bhubaneswar, and later underwent rehabilitation at AIIMS Bhubaneswar and NIMHANS Bengaluru, among other institutions. The child was ultimately diagnosed with post-traumatic myelopathy with paraplegia and certified as suffering 90% locomotor disability, permanent and irreversible in nature, requiring lifelong medication, care and support.
The 2nd Additional District Judge-cum-3rd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuttack had awarded compensation of Rs. 30,12,960 with 6% interest per annum. On appeal, the High Court of Orissa enhanced this to Rs. 45,40,800, while reducing the multiplier applied for computing loss of future earnings from 18 to 15 and enhancing compensation under several non-pecuniary heads. Aggrieved that the enhancement still fell short of 'just compensation', the claimant, through her mother, approached the Supreme Court by special leave.
Counsel for the appellant argued that both the Tribunal and the High Court had failed to adequately appreciate the nature of the injuries, the claimant's tender age, and the lifelong consequences flowing from a 90% disability requiring constant assistance. It was contended that the High Court had erred in reducing the multiplier from 18 to 15, and that the amount awarded towards future attendant charges, pain, suffering, loss of amenities and marriage prospects was inadequate given the child's catastrophic and irreversible condition.
Reliance was placed on this Court's decisions in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and R. Halle v. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited to argue that compensation for child victims of catastrophic disability cannot be confined to conventional heads, and that interest ought to have been awarded at 9% rather than 6% per annum. Counsel for the insurer, New India Assurance Company Limited, defended the High Court's award as adequate, submitting that assessment of compensation necessarily involves judicial discretion and that interference was unwarranted absent a showing that the award was manifestly inadequate.
Undertaking a detailed analysis, the Court held that cases involving child victims of permanent or near-total disability "constitute a distinct and special category" within motor accident compensation law, since a catastrophic injury suffered in childhood alters "the entire course of the child's existence" and cannot be evaluated through the same lens applied to adult claimants.
Surveying a line of recent precedent, including Kajal, Master Ayush v. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmed Simon, Divya v. National Insurance Company Limited and Hansraj v. Mukesh Nath, the Bench reiterated that injuries suffered by children have consequences extending "far beyond the immediate physical disability" and that courts must be conscious that "what has been taken away is not merely physical capacity but the child's entire future life."
On the question of multiplier, the Court held that the High Court had erred in reducing it from 18 to 15, noting a "subtle shift" in recent decisions applying the highest multiplier of 18 to child victims. The Bench also drew a distinction between medical and functional disability, holding that although Shreejita's physical disability had been medically certified at 90%, her functional disability her actual capacity to earn a livelihood was total, and therefore had to be taken as 100%.
On notional income, the Court held that the Tribunal had erred in applying a wage notification that post-dated the accident and in treating the child's prospective income as that of an unskilled labourer; instead, minimum wages payable to a skilled worker in the State, applicable on the date of the accident, had to be adopted. Recomputing on this basis with a 40% addition for future prospects and applying the multiplier of 18, the Court determined the loss of future earnings at Rs. 17,46,360.
On attendant charges, the Bench held that the multiplier method, rather than a lump-sum lifetime calculation, ought to govern this head as well, since it accounts for inflation, interest and the uncertainty of life. Taking the cost of two attendants at Rs. 6,000 each per month and applying the multiplier of 18, the Court arrived at Rs. 25,92,000 under this head. On pain, suffering, loss of amenities and marriage prospects, the Court enhanced the High Court's combined award of Rs. 22,00,000 by a further Rs. 3,00,000, taking the total to Rs. 25,00,000, observing that in cases of catastrophic disability, "the claim can be awarded only once" and courts must take a liberal view given that the claimant "cannot come back to court for enhancement of award at a later stage."
The Court left the award of Rs. 3,00,000 towards medical expenses undisturbed, but enhanced future medical treatment expenses from Rs. 5,00,000 to Rs. 10,00,000, and conveyance and special diet expenses from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 2,00,000, having regard to the lifelong nature of the care the child would require.
Bringing the recomputed heads together loss of future earnings, attendant charges, pain and suffering with loss of marriage prospects, medical expenses, future medical treatment, and conveyance and special diet the Court determined the total compensation payable at Rs. 83,38,360, up from Rs. 45,40,800 as awarded by the High Court, together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation.
The insurer, New India Assurance Company Limited, was directed to deposit the enhanced compensation along with accrued interest within six weeks before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuttack, for disbursal to the claimant following due procedure. The impugned judgment of the High Court was modified accordingly and the appeal was allowed, with no order as to costs.
Case Title: Gayatree Pattnaik for Shreejita Pattnaik vs. Arundhati Sahoo and Anr. | Case No: Civil Appeal No. 7067 of 2026 (2026 INSC 785)
