“Disability in a Child is Not Just a Loss of Earnings, But a Lifetime of Deprivation”: Supreme Court Upholds ₹27 Lakh Compensation for Amputated Minor Victim

“Pain, Shock, Frustration, and Loss of Pleasures Must Guide Compensation in Child Disability Cases”— In a latest decision Supreme Court of India dismissed a plea for further enhancement of compensation in the case of Rina Rani Mallick v. Susim Kanti Mohanty & Anr., affirming the High Court’s award of ₹27,03,328 for a four-year-old girl who suffered a below-knee amputation due to a motor vehicle accident.

Justice K. Vinod Chandran, writing for the Bench, invoked settled principles from earlier rulings and emphasized that: “The main element of damage in the case of child victim is the pain, shock, frustration, deprivation of ordinary pleasures and enjoyment associated with healthy and mobile limbs.”

The petitioner’s daughter, aged four, was travelling in a bus with her parents when it collided with a tractor, leading to grievous injuries. She underwent below-knee amputation and was certified to have 55% locomotor disability. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), recognizing composite negligence, awarded a compensation of ₹20,03,328, with full liability cast on respondent No. 2.

Though the High Court of Orissa found no error in liability, it enhanced the award by ₹7 lakhs, considering inadequacies in compensation towards future treatment, dependency, and non-pecuniary heads.

The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the quantum of compensation, as enhanced by the High Court, warranted further enhancement.
Justice Chandran observed that: “The compensation must not be confined to pecuniary losses but must take into account the lifelong trauma and restricted potential of the disabled child.”
The Court referred to its prior rulings in Mallikarjun v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2014) 14 SCC 396, and Kumari Kiran v. Sajjan Singh, (2015) 1 SCC 539, wherein it was held that: “Compensation in cases of child disability must account for non-pecuniary heads such as future deprivation, pain, and lifestyle limitations.”

In Mallikarjun, the Court laid down a guiding scale for such cases:
•    Disability above 10% and up to 30%: ₹3,00,000
•    Disability up to 60%: ₹4,00,000
•    Disability up to 90%: ₹5,00,000
•    Disability above 90%: ₹6,00,000

The Court highlighted that: “The aim is to enable the child to develop in such a manner as to offset, at least to some extent, the inconvenience or discomfort arising out of the disability.”

Breakdown of Compensation
The Tribunal had originally awarded compensation as follows:
•    Medical expenses: ₹1,55,554
•    Future treatment: ₹50,000
•    Attendant charges: ₹10,000
•    Pain, suffering, loss of amenities: ₹5,00,000
•    Loss of marriage prospects: ₹2,00,000
•    Conveyance and special diet: ₹20,000
•    Loss of future earnings (based on minimum wages): ₹10,67,774
•    Total (Tribunal): ₹20,03,328
The High Court added ₹7,00,000, raising the total compensation to ₹27,03,328, with 6% interest per annum.

The Supreme Court concluded that there was no scope for further enhancement, noting that the compensation already far exceeded what was awarded in the cases cited. The Bench held: “The amount granted is far higher than what was granted in the two cited decisions.”

Thus, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed, upholding the High Court's decision as fair and just compensation in light of the permanent physical and emotional toll on the child.

Date of Decision: April 30, 2025