SC awards ₹83 lakh to girl left paralysed after road accident

The Supreme Court on Monday awarded over ₹83

The Supreme Court on Monday awarded over ₹83.38 lakh in compensation to a minor girl left permanently paralysed in a road accident, ruling that courts deciding claims for catastrophically injured children must recognise that “what has been taken away is not merely physical capacity but the child’s entire future life.”

HT Image

A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice NV Anjaria enhanced the compensation payable to Shreejita Pattnaik — who was six months old when she was paralysed in a 2015 crash — from ₹45.40 lakh to ₹83.38 lakh, along with 9% annual interest.

The Supreme Court held that while the child had been medically assessed with 90% permanent disability, her functional disability was effectively 100% because the injuries completely extinguished her ability to earn a livelihood or live independently.

It stated that claims involving children who suffer permanent or near-total disability must be treated differently from those involving adults because children are especially vulnerable and entirely dependent on others.

“Catastrophic injuries affect not just their physical health but every stage of their future life,” the court said, adding that judiciary must adopt a distinct approach when deciding such cases.

“The consequences of a catastrophic injury suffered during childhood are not confined merely to the immediate physical impairment caused by the accident. Such injuries alter the entire course of the child’s existence and affect every subsequent stage of her life. The law, therefore, cannot evaluate claims involving injured children through the same lens that may ordinarily be applied in cases involving adults,” the bench said.

The top court passed the order while hearing an appeal filed by the girl’s mother. She had moved the Supreme Court after the Orissa high court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), arguing that the amount still fell far short of “just compensation” for a child who suffered life-altering injuries.

According to the order, the accident occurred on June 16, 2015 in Odisha, when Pattnaik was travelling with her parents in a car that was hit head-on by an allegedly rashly driven tanker.

She suffered spinal cord injuries, was diagnosed with post-traumatic myelopathy with paraplegia, and was left with permanent locomotor disability, requiring lifelong treatment, medication, and constant assistance.

The MACT in Cuttack had in April 2022 held the tanker driver negligent and awarded the minor ₹30.12 lakh with 6% interest. On appeal, the Orissa high court enhanced the compensation to ₹45.40 lakh, but reduced the multiplier used for calculating future loss of earnings from 18 to 15 while increasing compensation under several non-pecuniary heads.

Allowing the mother’s appeal, the Supreme Court cited several of its recent decisions and said it had consistently favoured applying a multiplier of 18 in cases involving young children with catastrophic disabilities. It ruled that the high court had erred in reducing the multiplier to 15.

The bench also held that compensation should be calculated using the minimum wages payable to a skilled worker rather than an unskilled worker while assessing the child’s future earning capacity.

It added that medical disability and functional disability are distinct concepts. While medical evidence assessed Pattnaik’s permanent disability at 90%, the court said the evidence on record established that she would remain dependent on others for the rest of her life and could never pursue any occupation. Her functional disability, therefore, had to be treated as 100%.

The court also increased the amount awarded towards attendant charges, observing that Pattnaik would require “round-the-clock care throughout her life.” It further increased compensation for pain, suffering, loss of amenities, and marriage prospects, bringing the total award to ₹83.38 lakh.

Holding that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation, the bench said compensation in cases involving severely disabled children must be “realistic, humane and liberal because the claim is decided only once and must provide for the victim’s entire lifetime.”