She Was Six Months Old. The Court Counted The Whole Life Ahead Of Her.
A tanker hit the car the baby was travelling in. Her award has gone from Rs 45.4 lakh to Rs 83.38 lakh, and the reasoning matters for every child injured on an Indian road.
The Court held the compensation was enhanced from Rs 45,40,800 to Rs 83,38,360 with interest at 9 per cent from the date of the claim petition until realisation. The High Court had erred in cutting the multiplier from 18 to 15, and although her physical disability was certified at 90 per cent, her functional disability was 100 per cent and was taken as such.
- Child victims are a distinct category. A child's dependence and vulnerability put her on an altogether different footing from an adult.
- Certified disability is not functional disability. Ninety per cent on paper was 100 per cent in life.
- The multiplier of 18 was restored, the tribunal having been right and the High Court wrong to lower it.
- Just compensation is neither a windfall nor a pittance — the standard the whole calculation answers to.
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Bench
- Justice N. V. Anjaria, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
- Citation
- 2026 INSC 785
- Reported
- [2026] 8 S.C.R. 590
- Case
- Civil Appeal No. 7067 of 2026
- Decided
- 3 August 2026
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; compensation enhanced to Rs 83,38,360 with 9% interest
What happened to the child
A tanker driven rashly and negligently collided with the car in which a six-month-old was travelling with her parents.
She suffered severe spinal cord and neurological injuries and was diagnosed with post-trauma myelopathy with paraplegia. The locomotor disability was assessed at 90 per cent, permanent in nature, needing a lifetime of medication and support.
The tribunal awarded Rs 30,12,960 with 6 per cent interest. The High Court raised it to Rs 45,40,800.
Why a child's case is different
The loss is not temporary. It is lifelong, continuing and irreversible, and it affects every stage of her development.
A child who suffers catastrophic injuries loses much more than physical abilities — she may lose the joys and experiences ordinarily associated with childhood itself.
Where such an injury deprives a child of the ability to perform ordinary functions independently, the loss goes beyond physical disability and becomes a continuing deprivation of dignity. Courts must remain conscious that what has been taken away is the child's entire future life.
How the figure was rebuilt
The multiplier of 18 applied by the tribunal was correct; the High Court erred in altering it to 15. Functional disability was taken at 100 per cent.
Notional income was taken from the wages payable to a skilled worker in Orissa under the prevailing notifications, with 40 per cent added for future prospects. Loss of future earning capacity came to Rs 17,46,360, and attendant charges to Rs 25,92,000.
Pain, suffering, loss of amenities and loss of marriage prospects were enhanced to Rs 25,00,000. Medical expenses of Rs 3,00,000 stood. Future medical treatment was raised to Rs 10,00,000 and conveyance and special diet to Rs 2,00,000.
Who argued it
Appearances as recorded in the judgment of the Court.
Frequently asked
How is compensation calculated for a child with no income?
On notional income — here the wages of a skilled worker under the State notification, with 40 per cent added for future prospects.
Can 90 per cent disability be treated as 100 per cent?
Yes. The Court took functional disability at 100 per cent although the certified physical disability was 90 per cent.
Preparing a claim for a catastrophically injured child
- Get functional disability assessed and spoken to, not just the percentage on the certificate.
- Anchor notional income to the State's own minimum wage notification for a skilled worker, and add future prospects.
- Plead attendant charges over the full multiplier; here they were the largest single head.
- Claim future medical treatment, conveyance and special diet separately, with material to support each.
Source. Supreme Court of India, 2026 INSC 785, [2026] 8 S.C.R. 590, Civil Appeal No. 7067 of 2026, decided 3 August 2026 by Justice N. V. Anjaria, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan. This explainer is written from the judgment text as reported.
Claw tracks Supreme Court of India and 24 other High Courts, reads every order handed back, and surfaces the directions that carry a deadline. clawlaw.in