How the compensation dispute reached the Court
Shreejita was about six months old when a tanker collided with the car in which she was travelling with her parents on 16 June 2015. The medical evidence recorded permanent spinal and neurological injuries and certified 90% locomotor disability. Her mother brought the claim on her behalf. The tribunal awarded ₹30,12,960; the High Court increased this to ₹45,40,800. The Supreme Court appeal concerned the adequacy of compensation, rather than a fresh dispute over the accident or the insurer’s liability. (Paragraphs 2–12 and 16.)
Why physical disability and functional disability differed
The Court assessed the effect of the injuries on the child’s whole future life. A medical percentage did not, by itself, describe her dependence on others or her future capacity to earn. Although physical disability was certified at 90%, functional disability was treated as 100%. The Court restored the multiplier of 18 and assessed loss of future earning capacity at ₹17,46,360, including a 40% addition for future prospects. This was a calculation based on the evidence and not a flat award for every child with a disability. (Paragraphs 31, 38–38.3, 47, 48–53 and 57.)
What the revised award covered
The revised heads included ₹25,92,000 for attendant charges, ₹25 lakh for pain, suffering and loss of amenities and marriage prospects, ₹3 lakh for medical expenses, ₹10 lakh for future medical treatment, and ₹2 lakh for conveyance and special diet. These heads recognise different consequences of the same injury: care costs are not a substitute for compensation for lost enjoyment of life. The insurer was directed to deposit the award and accrued interest before the tribunal within six weeks of receipt of the judgment. (Paragraphs 63–77.)
What readers should take from the ruling
The significance is the demand for a realistic assessment of a child’s lifelong needs. The Court treated catastrophic childhood disability as requiring particular care in the assessment of just compensation. The result should not be reduced to a headline amount or used as a fixed compensation table: evidence of functional impairment, continuing care and future treatment remains central. The order describes this claimant’s entitlement and the tribunal’s disbursement process. (Paragraphs 18–21, 31 and 76–78.)
A question this judgment answers
Did the Court treat a 90% disability certificate as the final measure of loss?
No. It distinguished the certified physical disability from its effect on the child’s future life and earning capacity, treating functional disability as 100% on this record. (Paragraphs 48–53.)
Lawyers and appearances recorded by SCR
The following retains the source’s grouping and designations. It does not establish each lawyer’s role in every connected proceeding.
- Advs. for the Appellant(s):
- Chitta Ranjan Mishra, Shakti Kanta Pattanaik, Priyanshu Maheshwari, Om Prakash Yadav, Lokesh Raghav.
- Advs. for the Respondent(s):
- Ms. Awantika Manohar, Ms. Parul Dhurvey.
Procedural origin recorded by SCR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7067 of 2026
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.01.2023 of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in MACA No. 283 of 2022