The Supreme Court of India has significantly enhanced the compensation awarded to a 14-year-old accident victim, raising the amount from ₹12,17,543 to ₹56,83,663. A Bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar observed that the notional income previously determined was on the lower side and mandated the provision for two round-the-clock attendants for the appellant, who suffered 100% permanent disability.
Background
The case originated from a road accident on November 8, 2016. The appellant, Hansraj, then aged 14, was a pillion rider on a motorcycle driven by the first respondent. Due to the driver’s negligence, the motorcycle collided with the rear portion of a tractor-trolley. The appellant suffered grievous injuries to his neck, head, and backbone, as well as multiple fractures, leading to 203 days of hospitalization.
The injuries resulted in 100% permanent disability. Consequently, a claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT). The MACT initially awarded ₹7,76,543. On appeal, the Rajasthan High Court enhanced this to ₹12,17,543. Dissatisfied with this partial enhancement, the claimant approached the Supreme Court seeking a substantial increase.
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel for the appellant argued that given the victim’s age and the severity of his 100% permanent disability, the notional income of ₹30,000 per annum considered by the High Court was inadequate. Placing reliance on the decision in Kumari Laxmisree Vs. The Managing Director, KSRCTC Depot, Bengaluru, the counsel suggested a monthly notional income of ₹10,000. Furthermore, it was submitted that the appellant required continuous, lifelong assistance, justifying higher attendant charges and enhancement under heads like pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and future medical expenses, citing Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand and others.
Conversely, the Insurance Company opposed the appeal and supported the High Court’s judgment. They argued that notional income should be based on the minimum wages payable to a skilled workman in 2016 (₹5,746 per month). They maintained that the High Court had already granted a reasonable partial enhancement and that the amounts claimed by the appellant were on a higher side.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Supreme Court held that the compensation awarded by the High Court deserved enhancement. Regarding the determination of notional income, the Court noted:
“The High Court has considered the notional annual income as ₹30,000/-. This amount is on a lower side. The notional income would have to be determined on the basis of the minimum wages admissible for a skilled workman in the State of Rajasthan in 2016.”
The Court fixed the monthly notional income at ₹5,800, adding 40% for future prospects and applying a multiplier of 18, bringing the total loss of income to ₹17,53,920.
On the critical issue of attendant charges, the Court referred to its precedent in Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand and observed:
“The appellant having suffered permanent disability, he would require the assistance of two attendants round the clock.”
Calculating the wages for a semi-skilled workman (₹5,000 per month) for two attendants over the multiplier of 18, the Court awarded ₹21,60,000 under this head. The Bench also significantly increased the awards for “Mental Pain & Suffering alongwith loss of amenities” to ₹10,00,000, “Future Medical Expenses” to ₹3,00,000, and “Loss of Marriage Prospects” to ₹3,00,000.
The Decision
The Supreme Court modified the High Court’s judgment dated April 9, 2024, holding the appellant entitled to a total compensation of ₹56,83,663 with 6% interest per annum from the date of filing the claim petition.
To ensure long-term care, the Court issued specific directions for the disbursement of the attendant charges (₹21,60,000). It directed that 25% of this specific amount be released immediately to the appellant, while the remaining 75% be invested in a fixed deposit. Annually, ₹1,50,000 is to be released to the appellant from this deposit to meet ongoing care costs while the balance continues to earn interest.
Case Details Block:
- Case Title: Hansraj v. Mukesh Nath and Others
- Case No.: Civil Appeal Arising out of SLP (C) No. 13122 of 2024
- Bench: Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
- Date: May 6, 2026
