When a child is left paralysed by a road accident, how should the compensation be calculated? Should it be based on what the child was earning at the time — which, for an infant, is nothing? Or must it account for the entire future that has been destroyed?
The Hon'ble Supreme Court has answered this definitively: compensation for a child victim of a road accident must account for the future that has been lost — not merely the status that existed on the date of the accident. A child who was not earning cannot be equated with a non-earning adult for the purpose of calculating loss of future earnings.
What Happened
An infant — Shreejita — suffered 100% functional disability following spinal cord injuries in a road accident. The Orissa High Court awarded ₹45.40 lakh, treating her permanent disability at 90% based on medical reports, without considering her actual functional disability. The Supreme Court enhanced the compensation to ₹83.38 lakhs.
The Two Critical Principles the Court Established
First — Functional Disability Over Medical Disability: The Court held that what matters for computing loss of future earnings is functional disability — the actual impact of the injury on the victim's ability to earn — not merely the percentage of physical disability recorded by a medical officer. A person with 90% physical disability may have 100% functional disability — meaning they cannot earn at all. These are different numbers, and courts must use the right one.
Second — Future, Not Present Status: A non-earning child cannot be assessed on the basis of their earning status at the time of the accident. The law requires courts to account for the future that has been lost. The Court observed: "While dealing with child victims, the law must take into account the future which has been lost and not merely the status which existed at the time when the accident occurred."
For computing the child's future income, the Court applied a notional income standard and then multiplied it by the appropriate multiplier based on the child's age — a significantly larger multiplier than would apply to an older adult victim, because a child's future years of earnings are far more numerous.
Loss of future earnings (based on functional disability × income × multiplier) · Medical expenses (past and future) · Attendant charges (for lifetime care requirement) · Pain and suffering · Loss of amenities of life · Special diet and conveyance · Rehabilitation. All applicable heads must be specifically claimed — courts do not automatically award what is not claimed.
What Families of Child Accident Victims Must Do
Get a functional disability assessment — not just the standard medical percentage disability — from a specialist. The functional disability report should address the specific impact of the injury on the child's ability to work, study, and lead an independent life.
Claim under all applicable heads. Future medical expenses, attendant charges for life, special diet, and rehabilitation are often not claimed because families are unaware of them. These heads add significantly to the total compensation.
If the MACT award seems inadequate — particularly if the Tribunal used medical disability percentage instead of functional disability, or failed to apply an appropriate multiplier for the child's age — appeal to the High Court under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Notional income for non-earning victims — the Court applies a standard notional income figure. For children this is applied along with the full multiplier for their age. Ensure your advocate claims specifically on this basis rather than accepting that a non-earning child gets no "loss of earnings" award.