The Supreme Court substantially enhanced compensation for a 14-year-old victim suffering 100% permanent disability, holding that compensation under the MV Act must realistically account for lifelong dependency, attendant care, pain, loss of amenities, and future prospects.

on

Facts

The appellant, aged about 14 years, suffered grievous injuries in a motor vehicle accident on 08.11.2016 while travelling as a pillion rider. The motorcycle hit the rear portion of a tractor trolley due to negligent driving. The appellant sustained severe injuries to the neck, backbone and head, resulting in fractures and 100% permanent disability. He remained hospitalized for approximately 203 days.

A claim petition under s. 166 MV Act was filed seeking compensation of ₹22,45,000/-. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded ₹7,76,543/-. In appeal under s. 173 MV Act, the Rajasthan High Court enhanced the compensation to ₹12,17,543/-. Dissatisfied with the quantum, the claimant approached the Supreme Court.

Issues Framed

Whether the compensation awarded by the High Court was just and reasonable considering the claimant’s 100% permanent disability and lifelong dependency.

Court’s Reasoning

(a) The Court held that the notional income fixed by the High Court at ₹30,000 annually was “on a lower side.” (Para 8). The Court determined income on the basis of minimum wages payable to a skilled workman in Rajasthan in 2016, fixing monthly income at ₹5,800 and annual income at ₹69,600. After adding 40% future prospects and applying multiplier 18, loss of income was computed at ₹17,53,920.

(b) On attendant charges, the Court relied upon Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and held that the appellant would require “the assistance of two attendants round the clock” for life. (Para 9). Applying minimum wages and multiplier 18, the Court awarded ₹21,60,000 towards attendant charges.

(c) The Court substantially enhanced non-pecuniary compensation, awarding ₹10,00,000 for “mental pain and suffering alongwith loss of amenities,” ₹3,00,000 for future medical expenses, and ₹3,00,000 for loss of marriage prospects. (Para 10).

(d) The Court directed structured disbursement of attendant charges, observing that a substantial portion should remain invested in fixed deposit so that future care expenses could continuously be met. (Para 9–11).

Held

The Supreme Court modified the High Court judgment and enhanced total compensation to ₹56,83,663 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. The Court directed 75% of the attendant charges component to remain invested in fixed deposit with annual withdrawals permitted. (Para 11).

Ratio

In assessing compensation for 100% permanent disability under the MV Act, courts must adopt realistic computation of notional income, future prospects, lifelong attendant expenses, and non-pecuniary losses so as to award “just compensation” proportionate to the claimant’s lifelong condition.

Case Details

Citation: 2026 INSC 454
Decided on: 6 May 2026
Case Title: Hansraj v. Mukesh Nath and Others
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar