Page 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  7139    OF 2013   [Arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) No. 1676 of 2012]

Master Mallikarjun … Appellant (s)   

Versus

Divisional Manager, the National Insurance   Company Limited & Anr. … Respondent  (s)

J U D G M E N T  

KURIAN, J.:   

Leave granted.    

2. What is the just and fair compensation to be awarded  

to a child, who suffered disability in a motor accident,  

is the main point arising for consideration in this case.

THE UNDISPUTED FACTS

3. Appellant  at  the  age  of  12  years  was  hit  by  a  

motorcycle  on 05.06.2006. He suffered the  following  

injuries: -

a. (Right)  lower  1/3  leg  deformity,  movements  restricted diagnosis of fracture.

1

REPORTABLE

Page 2

b. Two  abrasions  over  left  elbow  posteriorly  over  olecrenon both measuring 4x1 cms.

c. Abrasion over dorsal aspect right hand at the basis  of index finger.

4. Negligence  of  the  rider  was  proved.  The  child  was  

treated  as  inpatient  from 05.06.2006 to 01.08.2006,  

for  58  days.  He  was  operated  on  24.06.2006.  Six  

months after the discharge, he was seen by the doctor  

on 15.02.2007 for follow up. It is in evidence that the  

patient had the following discomforts/ disabilities, i.e.:

i. Patient walks with limp on to the right side.

ii. Puckered scar on and aspect of middle 1/3 of (Right)  leg with operated scar on either side.

iii. Shortening of right lower limb by 1.5 cms.

iv.Limitation of right knee movements by 30 %.

v. Muscle power around right knee Gr.IV against Gr.V.

vi.Limitation of right ankle movement by 20%.

vii. Muscle  power  around  (right)  ankle  is  Gr.  IV  against Gr.V.

viii. Check  X ray No. 3791 dated 15.02.2007 shows  disunited fracture of right tibia with plate and screw  fixation in situ. Mal union fracture of right tibia.  

5. The surgeon had assessed the disability to the extent  

of 34% of right lower limb and 18% to the whole body.

2

Page 3

6. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in a petition filed  

claiming  compensation  to  the  tune  of  Rs.4,00,000/-,  

awarded  compensation  to  the  tune  of  Rs.63,500/-  

under the following heads:-

HEAD COMPENSATION  

AMOUNT Pain and suffering. Rs.25,000/- Inconvenience caused to  parents.

Rs.10,000/-

Medical expenses. Rs.4,500/- Loss of future amenities. Rs.10,000/- Conveyance, food nourishment  expenses.

Rs.4,000/-

Future surgery. Rs.10,000/- TOTAL:- Rs.63,500/-

7. On approaching the High Court, the compensation was  

enhanced  to  Rs.1,09,500/-.  The  enhancement  was  

mainly  under  the  head  “Loss  of  future  amenities”  

wherein  the  appellant  was  awarded  Rs.50,000/-.  

Appellant  still  not  satisfied,  filed  this  Special  Leave  

Petition.

8. It  is unfortunate that both the Tribunal and the High  

Court  have  not  properly  appreciated  the  medical  

3

Page 4

evidence available in the case.  The age of the child  

and deformities on his body resulting in disability, have  

not been duly taken note of. As held by this Court in  

R.D. Hattangadi vs. M/s. Pest Control (India) Pvt.  

Ltd. and Others1, while assessing the non-pecuniary  

damages, the damages for mental and physical shock,  

pain and suffering already suffered and that are likely  

to  be  suffered,  any  future  damages  for  the  loss  of  

amenities in life like difficulty in running, participation  

in  active  sports,  etc.,  damages  on  account  of  

inconvenience,  hardship,  discomfort,  disappointment,  

frustration, etc., have to be addressed especially in the  

case of a child victim.  For a child, the best part of his  

life is yet to come. While considering the claim by a  

victim child, it would be unfair and improper to follow  

the structured formula as per the Second Schedule to  

the Motor Vehicles Act for reasons more than one. The  

main stress in the formula is on pecuniary damages.  

For children there is no income. The only indication in  

the Second Schedule for non-earning persons is to take  

the notional income as Rs.15,000/-  per year.  A child  

1 (1995) 1 SCC 551

4

Page 5

cannot  be  equated  to  such  a  non-earning  person.  

Therefore, the compensation is to be worked out under  

the  non-pecuniary  heads  in  addition  to  the  actual  

amounts  incurred  for  treatment  done  and/or  to  be  

done, transportation, assistance of attendant, etc. The  

main elements of damage in the case of child victims  

are the pain, shock, frustration, deprivation of ordinary  

pleasures and enjoyment associated with healthy and  

mobile  limbs.  The  compensation  awarded  should  

enable the child to acquire something or to develop a  

lifestyle  which  will  offset  to  some  extent  the  

inconvenience  or  discomfort  arising  out  of  the  

disability.  Appropriate  compensation  for  disability  

should take care of all the non-pecuniary damages. In  

other words, apart from this head, there shall only be  

the  claim  for  the  actual  expenditure  for  treatment,  

attendant, transportation, etc.  

9. Sapna    vs.  United  Indian  Insurance  Company  

Limited and Another2 is the case of a 12 year old girl  

who suffered 90% disability in her left leg. This Court  

2 (2008) 7 SCC 613

5

Page 6

granted a lump sum amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on these  

heads.

10. In  Iranna vs.  Mohammadali Khadarsab Mulla and  

Another  3  ,  a  Division  Bench  of  the  Karnataka  High  

Court  granted  an  amount  of  Rs.4,00,000/-  on  these  

heads  to  the  child  who  suffered  80%  permanent  

disability.  

11. In  Kum. Michael vs.  Regional Manager, Oriental  

Insurance  Company  Limited  and  Another4,  this  

Court considered the case of an eight year old child  

suffering a fracture on both legs with total  disability  

only  to  the  tune  of  16%.  It  was held  that  the  child  

should be entitled to an amount  of Rs.3,80,000/-  on  

these counts.

12. Though it is difficult  to have an accurate assessment  

of the compensation in the case of children suffering  

disability  on  account  of  a  motor  vehicle  accident,  

having regard to the relevant factors, precedents and  

the  approach of  various  High  Courts,  we are  of  the  

3 2004 ACJ 1396 4 JT 2013 (3) SC 311

6

Page 7

view that  the appropriate compensation on all  other  

heads  in  addition  to  the  actual  expenditure  for  

treatment, attendant, etc., should be, if the disability is  

above  10% and  upto  30% to  the  whole  body,  Rs.3  

lakhs; upto 60%, Rs.4 lakhs; upto 90%, Rs.5 lakhs and  

above 90%,  it  should  be  Rs.6 lakhs.  For  permanent  

disability upto 10%, it should be Re.1 lakh, unless there  

are  exceptional  circumstances  to  take  different  

yardstick. In the instant case, the disability is to the  

tune  of  18%.  Appellant  had  a  longer  period  of  

hospitalization  for  about  two  months  causing  also  

inconvenience and loss of earning to the parents. The  

appellant,  hence,  would  be  entitled  to  get  the  

compensation as follows: -

HEAD COMPENSATION  

AMOUNT Pain  and  suffering  already  undergone and to be suffered  in future, mental and physical  shock,  hardship,  inconvenience,  and  discomforts,  etc.,  and  loss  of  amenities in life on account of  permanent disability.

Rs.3,00,000/-

Discomfort, inconvenience and  loss of earnings to the parents  during  the  period  of  

Rs.25,000/-

7

Page 8

hospitalization.

Medical  and  incidental  expenses during the period of  hospitalization for 58 days.

Rs.25,000/-

Future  medical  expenses  for  correction of the mal union of  fracture  and  incidental  expenses for such treatment.

Rs.25,000/-

TOTAL:- Rs.3,75,000/-

13. The impugned judgment of the High Court in M.F.A. No.  

1146 of 2008 is accordingly modified. The claimant will  

be  entitled  to  a  total  compensation  of  Rs.3,75,000/-  

along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of  

the petition. First respondent – Insurance Company is  

directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with  

interest as above within two months from today. On  

such  deposit,  it  will  be  open  to  the  appellant  to  

approach  the  Tribunal  for  appropriate  orders  on  

withdrawal. The appeal is allowed as above.

14. There is no order as to costs.

                                                                      …………….….. …………J.

8

Page 9

          (GYAN SUDHA  

MISRA)

                                                                      .…….. ……………………J.

          (KURIAN JOSEPH)

New Delhi; August 26, 2013.    

9

Page 10

1