Facts
The appellant, mother and natural guardian of six-month-old Shreejita Pattnaik, sought enhancement of compensation arising from a motor accident on 16.06.2015. The child sustained severe spinal cord injuries resulting in 90% permanent locomotor disability (post-traumatic myelopathy with paraplegia). The MACT awarded ₹30,12,960, which the High Court enhanced to ₹45,40,800. Dissatisfied, the claimant approached the Supreme Court seeking just compensation.
Issues Framed
(a) Whether the compensation awarded by the High Court satisfied the requirement of "just compensation" under S.168 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
(b) Whether the claimant was entitled to further enhancement considering the lifelong consequences of the permanent disability.
Court's Reasoning
(a) The Court reiterated that S.168 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 mandates compensation that is "just, fair and reasonable", neither a windfall nor a pittance. In cases involving children with catastrophic injuries, courts must adopt a realistic, humane and welfare-oriented approach. It relied on Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, Pranay Sethi, R.D. Hattangadi, Baby Sakshi Greola, and other precedents.
(b) The Court distinguished physical disability from functional disability. Although the medical disability was certified at 90%, the evidence established that the child would never be capable of independent livelihood. Accordingly, the Court treated her functional disability as 100%.
(c) The Court held that for child victims, future income should be computed on the basis of minimum wages payable to a skilled worker, with multiplier 18, and substantially enhanced compensation towards attendant charges, pain and suffering, future medical treatment, and conveyance, recognising lifelong dependence and deprivation.
Held
The appeal was allowed. Compensation was enhanced from ₹45,40,800 to ₹83,38,360, with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization. The insurer was directed to deposit the amount within six weeks.
Ratio
For child victims suffering catastrophic permanent disability, compensation under S.168 Motor Vehicles Act must reflect the lifelong loss of earning capacity, dignity, amenities, medical care and dependence; functional disability, not merely medical disability, is the determinative factor in assessing just compensation.
Relevant Para
Para 53
"In so far the present case is concerned, there is no disagreement or dispute as to the extent of disability suffered by the injured child victim. As per the disability certificate-Exhibit 35, the injured child Shreejita Pattnaik has suffered 90% permanent disability due to the motor vehicular accident, and she has been diagnosed with post-traumatic myelopathy with paraplegia. The evidence of PW-3, PW-4 and PW-7, who were the treating doctors of the injured claimant, establish that disability suffered by Shreejita Pattnaik is permanent and irreversible in nature and that she would continue to remain dependent on others for the rest of her life. The medical evidence further discloses that she would not be able to discharge normal day-to-day activities independently and would require assistance even for basic functions. The disability certificate alongwith the evidence as stated above have been accepted by the MACT as well as by the High Court. At the time of the accident, Shreejita Pattnaik was aged about six months. In the circumstances, though the permanent physical disability has been assessed and certified at 90%, applying the functional disability test, it is evident that it would be impossible for her to engage in any avocation to earn a livelihood. Her future earning capacity has been completely destroyed; rather extinguished. Therefore, though the permanent physical disability has been assessed and certified at 90%, her functional disability is total i.e. 100%. Hence, her disability would be taken as 100%."
Case Details
Citation: 2026 INSC 785
Decided on: 03 August 2026
Case Title: Gayatree Pattnaik for Shreejita Pattnaik v. Arundhati Sahoo & Anr.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, J.; N.V. Anjaria, J.