How does a tribunal put a figure on the future of a six-month-old child left paraplegic by a road accident? In Gayatree Pattnaik for Shreejita Pattnaik v. Arundhati Sahoo & Anr., 2026 INSC 785, decided on 3 August 2026, the Supreme Court enhanced the compensation payable to a child injured in a 2015 accident from Rs. 45.40 lakh to Rs. 83,38,360, with interest at 9 per cent from the date of the claim petition. The judgment restates, in one place, the principles that govern motor accident claims by child victims: functional disability over bare medical percentages, skilled-worker notional income, the multiplier of 18, and heads of compensation that acknowledge a lifetime of dependence.
The Background
In 2015, an infant aged about six months suffered severe spinal cord injuries in a motor accident, resulting in post-trauma myelopathy with paraplegia. Her disability was medically assessed at 90 per cent, permanent, with lifelong treatment and attendant care required. The claim was pursued through her mother. The High Court awarded Rs. 45,40,800. On appeal, a bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice N.V. Anjaria enhanced the award to Rs. 83,38,360 on 3 August 2026, with interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realisation.
The Principles the Court Applied
Functional, not merely medical, disability
The medical certificate recorded 90 per cent disability, but the Court assessed the loss of earning capacity at 100 per cent, because the child will never be able to undertake any income-generating activity. The enquiry is into what the injury does to the life, not what the certificate says in the abstract.
A child is not a "non-earning person"
The Court rejected the equation of a child victim with a person never gainfully employed. A child's claim carries the whole of an unlived working life; notional income must therefore be fixed realistically, here at the skilled-worker minimum wage with 40 per cent added for future prospects.
Multiplier of 18 restored
Consistent with the settled approach for victims below 15 years, the multiplier of 18 was applied in place of the 15 adopted by the High Court, the multiplier method being preferred as it accounts for inflation and longevity.
A realistic, humane approach
Injuries to children form a distinct category. Compensation must answer the deprivation across physical, emotional and social dimensions — including lifelong dependence on attendants and lost marriage prospects — and cannot be confined to conventional heads alone.
How the Award Was Built
| Head of compensation | Amount (Rs.) |
|---|---|
| Loss of future earnings (Rs. 97,020 × 18 × 100%) | 17,46,360 |
| Attendant charges (lifelong care) | 25,92,000 |
| Pain, suffering, loss of amenities and marriage prospects | 25,00,000 |
| Medical expenses incurred | 3,00,000 |
| Future medical treatment | 10,00,000 |
| Conveyance and special diet | 2,00,000 |
| Total | 83,38,360 |
Two figures in this table repay attention. The attendant charges — nearly Rs. 26 lakh — are the largest single head after general damages, a recognition that for a paraplegic child the cost of care is not incidental but central. And the notional income calculation starts from the skilled minimum wage on the date of the accident, not the unskilled rate that tribunals sometimes reach for by default in claims for minors.
What This Means in Practice
For claimants prosecuting a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals — including the MACTs attached to the District Courts in Delhi — the judgment supplies a checklist worth pleading expressly.
Plead and prove functional disability through treating doctors, not just the disability certificate. Place the notified skilled-worker minimum wage for the relevant date on record. Claim future prospects at 40 per cent for a minor. Press the multiplier of 18. Quantify attendant care over a lifetime, future medical treatment, conveyance and special diet as separate heads, each supported by evidence. Seek interest from the date of the claim petition.
For insurers and respondents, the decision signals that undervaluation of child claims by resort to unskilled notional income, reduced multipliers or token attendant charges is unlikely to survive appellate scrutiny. The measure is the life the child would have lived; awards in this class of case are to be assessed with that future, and its loss, squarely in view.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why was the child's disability treated as 100% when doctors certified 90%?
Because the assessment is of functional disability — the effect of the injury on the person's capacity to live and earn — and not a mechanical adoption of the medical percentage. A child with post-trauma myelopathy and paraplegia of both lower limbs will never be able to engage in any income-generating activity, so the loss of earning capacity was taken at 100%.
What notional income is taken for a child who has never earned?
The Court adopted the minimum wage notified for a skilled worker in the State as on the date of the accident — Rs. 192.50 per day, or about Rs. 69,300 a year — rather than an unskilled rate, and added 40 per cent for future prospects, yielding Rs. 97,020 per annum. A child victim, the Court held, cannot be equated with a person who was never gainfully employed.
Which multiplier applies to a minor claimant?
The multiplier of 18 was applied, consistent with the jurisprudence on claims by or for persons below 15 years of age. The High Court had reduced it to 15; the Supreme Court restored 18.
What heads of compensation were allowed beyond loss of earnings?
Attendant charges of Rs. 25,92,000 recognising lifelong care; Rs. 25,00,000 for pain, suffering, loss of amenities and loss of marriage prospects; Rs. 3,00,000 for medical expenses incurred; Rs. 10,00,000 for future medical treatment; and Rs. 2,00,000 for conveyance and special diet — a total of Rs. 83,38,360.