Rushi @ Ruchi Thapa vs. M/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
Background
When she was not yet twelve years old, Ruchi Thapa was left 75% permanently disabled after the vehicle she was travelling in in Assam was hit by a pick-up van. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded her only about Rs. 5.6 lakh, reducing her assessed disability to 50% and using a very low "non-earning person" income figure. On appeal, the Gauhati High Court raised this to about Rs. 19 lakh, restoring her disability to 75% and calculating lost future income based on unskilled minimum wages. Still unsatisfied, she appealed further to the Supreme Court, claiming a much larger amount.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that since Ruchi Thapa was a school-going child at the time, her lost future earnings should be calculated using minimum wages for a skilled workman (not unskilled labour), following its earlier decision in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand. It also held that the High Court had wrongly failed to add a further amount for "loss of future prospects" (40% of projected income), which the law requires for young accident victims, and increased the allowance for future medical treatment and added a lifetime attendant-care allowance given the severity of her disability. Combining these corrected heads, the Court raised her total compensation to about Rs. 34 lakh with 7.5% interest, while leaving the medical-bill reimbursement and other awarded amounts unchanged for lack of supporting bills beyond what was already proved.
Lesson Learnt
When a child is permanently disabled in an accident, compensation cannot be based on token "non-earning" figures. Courts must assess lost future earnings using realistic skilled-wage benchmarks, add a further sum for lost future prospects, and account for lifetime costs like attendant care, not just medical bills already incurred.