Supreme Court refuses further enhancement of compensation for child amputee, upholds High Court's grant

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran heard a Special Leave Petition challenging an Orissa High Court order that enhanced compensation awarded to a minor child who suffered amputation and permanent disability in a motor vehicle accident. The petition sought further enhancement of the quantum granted by the High Court.

The Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition and held that no further enhancement was warranted in the facts of the case. The Court applied this Court’s precedents on compensation to child victims, noting that awards for children must include non-pecuniary heads to meet the pain, deprivation and loss of amenities that accompany permanent disability, but found the total amount awarded — after the High Court’s addition of Rs. 7 lakhs — to be adequate. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Considering the fact 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, it was held that compensation should 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." The Court recorded the operative dispensation in clear terms: "The Special Leave Petition stands dismissed."

Background

The accident occurred when the petitioner’s four‑year‑old child, travelling with her parents in a bus, sustained injuries when the bus collided with a tractor. The child underwent a below‑knee amputation of the right leg and a disability certificate quantified her disability at 55% (locomotor disability due to disarticulation at the ankle joint). The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.20,03,328 under heads including medical expenses (Rs.1,55,554), future treatment (Rs.50,000), attendant charges (Rs.10,000), pain and suffering (Rs.5,00,000), loss of marriage prospects (Rs.2,00,000), conveyance and special diet (Rs.20,000) and loss of future earnings (Rs.10,67,774). The High Court enhanced the award by Rs.7,00,000, fixing the total at Rs.27,03,328 with simple interest at 6% per annum.

Composite negligence was found, but respondent No.2 alone had been directed to pay the entire enhanced compensation; the insurer did not appeal and the present challenge concerned only quantum. The Supreme Court examined earlier authorities including Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Kumari Kiran v. Sajjan Singh, which recognised that children have no actual income and that compensation must address non‑pecuniary losses. Mallikarjun provided benchmark guidance on non‑pecuniary awards for varying degrees of disability (for example, Rs.4 lakhs for disability upto 60%), and Kumari Kiran applied those principles to increase awards for child victims.

Applying those precedents to the facts — the Tribunal’s adoption of a notional income approach for future earnings, the awards for actual treatment and attendant care, and the High Court’s enhancement — the bench concluded that the aggregate amount exceeded the compensation normally granted in the cited decisions and did not merit further increase. The Court therefore dismissed the petition and disposed of pending applications.

Case Details: Case No.: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 17267 of 2024 (2025 INSC 602) Case Title: Rina Rani Mallick v. Susim Kanti Mohanty & Anr. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Counsel not indicated in the judgment For the Respondent(s): Counsel not indicated in the judgment