Master Ayush vs The Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Background
The appellant, a 5-year-old boy at the time, suffered a road accident in 2010 leaving him paraplegic: unable to move his legs, with complete sensory loss, urinary incontinence, and bowel problems, though partial recovery allowed limited mobility using a special orthotic device. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 18,24,000 in compensation, but the High Court reduced this to Rs. 13,46,805 on appeal. The appellant challenged the High Court's reduction as inadequate, particularly on medical expenses, the cost of replacing his mobility device, and conveyance costs.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court found several of the High Court's deductions unjustified. It undercounted actual medical expenses, failed to account for the device needing replacement every five years (warranting cost for two devices, not one), and wrongly rejected taxi/conveyance expenses merely because the taxi driver was not produced as a witness, ignoring the boy's genuine mobility needs. Applying minimum-wage-based multiplier principles (from precedents like National Insurance Co. v. Pranay Sethi and Kajal v. Jagdish Chand) and adding 40% for future prospects, the Court recalculated compensation head-by-head (future loss of earnings, medical expenses, devices, pain and suffering, loss of marriage prospects, attendant charges, and conveyance) arriving at a total of Rs. 49,93,000 with 7.5% interest from the date of filing. Since the appellant is a minor, only Rs. 10 lakh was directed to be released to his father as guardian, with the rest kept in fixed deposits generating monthly interest for his care.
Lesson Learnt
Courts assessing compensation for a child with permanent disability must take a holistic, liberal view of every real-life cost (recurring device replacement, dependable transport, and lost life milestones) rather than mechanically rejecting claims for want of formal proof like producing a taxi driver as a witness.