The Supreme Court of India has ruled in favour of enhanced compensation for a child permanently disabled due to a road accident, emphasizing that the impact of lifelong disability on a minor’s life cannot be undervalued. In Civil Appeal No. … of 2024 (SLP (C) No. 6176 of 2023), a bench comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar increased the compensation awarded to Miss Rushi @ Ruchi Thapa, represented by her father, to ₹34,07,771 from the ₹18,97,371 previously set by the Gauhati High Court.
The appellant, who sustained severe injuries at age 12, was left with 75% permanent disability. The Supreme Court’s judgment underscores the need for a fair calculation of compensation in cases involving minors with significant, lifelong disabilities.
Background of the Case
The accident occurred on April 13, 2013, when Rushi Thapa was travelling with her father in Assam. Their vehicle was hit by a Max Pick Up Van, resulting in serious injuries to Rushi, who suffers from Hemiparesis, a condition severely affecting her left limbs. Her father, Dhan Bahadur Thapa, subsequently filed a claim for compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) in Kamrup, Guwahati, against M/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., the insurer of the offending vehicle.
The MACT initially awarded ₹5,59,771 in compensation, downscaling Rushi’s disability from 75% to 50%, assuming potential improvement. The tribunal also restricted medical expense compensation due to lack of detailed bills, awarding only the claimed amount of ₹84,771. Dissatisfied with this amount, the family appealed to the Gauhati High Court.
The Gauhati High Court increased the compensation to ₹18,97,371, acknowledging Rushi’s 75% permanent disability. This revised calculation included compensation for loss of marriage prospects and based her notional income on the minimum wage of an unskilled worker at the time. Nonetheless, the family sought further redress at the Supreme Court, arguing the amount was still inadequate given the extent of Rushi’s disabilities.
Key Legal Issues
1. Appropriate Notional Income for a Minor with Disability: The Court examined the basis for calculating notional income for a minor who would be unable to earn due to a severe, lifelong disability. The appellant’s counsel argued that her income should be based on minimum wages for skilled labor rather than unskilled.
2. Consideration of Loss of Future Prospects and Attendant Charges: The Court explored whether the calculation should include additional future prospects and lifetime attendant care, given the appellant’s need for ongoing assistance due to her disabilities.
3. Determining Adequate Compensation for Future Medical Needs: The Court addressed whether the previous awards accounted adequately for ongoing medical and physiotherapy costs, essential for Rushi’s lifelong care.
Supreme Court’s Decision
In its judgment, the Supreme Court recalibrated Rushi’s notional income to reflect minimum wages for a skilled worker at the time of the accident, i.e., ₹175 per day, rather than the ₹169 per day used by the High Court. On this basis, the notional income was calculated at ₹5,250 per month, resulting in a revised lifetime earning loss of ₹9,45,000, factoring in a multiplier of 15 due to her age at the time of the accident.
Justice Sanjay Kumar, writing the judgment, underscored that the case warranted the application of a future prospects component, awarding an additional ₹3,78,000. This element, the Court noted, aligns with the precedents set in similar cases involving minors with severe disabilities.
The Court further addressed Rushi’s need for lifelong assistance, awarding ₹9,00,000 in attendant charges based on an estimated monthly cost of ₹5,000, as guided by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand. The judgment clarified:
“The multiplier method is the most realistic and reasonable method for this purpose. The appellant would be entitled to attendant charges considering the severe disability that renders her in need of constant assistance.”
Acknowledging Rushi’s ongoing medical needs, the Court also revised the future medical expenses to ₹5,00,000, an increase from the High Court’s allocation of ₹3,00,000.
Observations of the Court
The Supreme Court took a decisive stance on ensuring that compensation is adequately reflective of the disability’s lifelong impact on a young individual. Justice Kumar remarked:
“The impact of permanent disability on a child’s life, especially when it impairs their future earning potential and independence, cannot be undervalued. A fair and just compensation must consider not only the immediate loss but also the lifelong challenges posed by the disability.”
Breakdown of the Final Compensation Awarded
The Supreme Court awarded the following amounts to Rushi:
– Loss of future earnings: ₹9,45,000
– Loss of future prospects: ₹3,78,000
– Attendant charges for lifetime: ₹9,00,000
– Pain, suffering, and loss of amenities: ₹3,00,000
– Loss of marriage prospects: ₹3,00,000
– Future medical treatment: ₹5,00,000
– Medical and hospitalization expenses: ₹84,771
Total: ₹34,07,771
The Supreme Court also upheld the interest rate of 7.5% per annum on the remaining balance from the claim’s filing date, directing the insurance company to deposit the amount with the MACT at Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati. The Court ordered that a significant portion of the compensation be invested in fixed deposits to maximize interest for the appellant’s benefit.
