Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Kumari Neelam D/O Shri Hanuman Sahai … vs Jai Prakash Natani S/O Shri Shashi … on 18 June, 2025
Author: Ganesh Ram Meena
Bench: Ganesh Ram Meena
[2025:RJ-JP:23306]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1999/2020
Kumari Neelam D/o Shri Hanuman Sahai Meena, Aged About 22
Years, R/o Gram Badoli, Tehsil And District Dausa.
----Claimant/Appellant
Versus
1. Jai Prakash Natani S/o Shri Shashi Prasad Natani, R/o
Veerchandra Singh Gharwali Marg, Shrinagar Pauri
Garhwal, District- Pauri Garhwal, Uttarakhand (Driver)
2. Mangal Singh Panwar S/o Shri Sate Singh Panwar, R/o
Agency Mohalla, Srinagar, Pauri Gharwali, District - Pauri
Garhwal, Uttarakhand (Owner)
3. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited, Through
Branch Manager, Branch Office - 205-208, Green House,
Ashok Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Insurance Company)
----Non-claimants/Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1474/2020
Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., Through Branch Manager,
Branch Office, 205-208, Green House, Ashok Marg, C-Scheme,
Jaipur At Present At Having Office At C-99, Shreeji Towers,
Subhash Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur Through Its Authorized
Signatory, (Insurance Company Of Car No. Uk 12 A 7878)
—-Non-claimant/Appellant
Versus
1. Kumari Neelam D/o Shri Hanuman Sahai Meena, Resident
Of Village Badoli, Tehsil And District Jaipur.
…Claimant/Appellant
2. Jaiprakash Natani S/o Shri Shashi Prasad Natani, Resident
Of Veer Chandra Singh Gharwali Marg, Srinagar, Paui
Garwal, District Pauri Gharhwal, Uttrakhand (Driver Of
Car No. Uk 12 A 7878)
3. Mangal Singh Panwar S/o Shri Sate Singh Panwar,
Resident Of Agency Mohalla, Srinagar, Pauri Gharhwal,
District Pauri Gharhwal, Uttrakhand (Owner Of Car No. Uk
12 A 7878)
—-Non-claimants/Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ritesh Jain with Mr. Ramdeo Arya
for claimant/appellant in Misc. Appeal
(Downloaded on 18/06/2025 at 10:14:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:23306] (2 of 29) [CMA-1999/2020]
No.1999/2020 and for
claimant/respondent No.1 in Misc.
Appeal No. 1474/2020
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rizwan Ahmed for non-claimant/
respondent No.3 in Misc. Appeal No.
1999/2020 and for appellant/non-
claimant in Misc. Appeal No.
1474/2020
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA
Judgment
Reportable
Reserved on ::: May 30, 2025
Pronounced on ::: June 18, 2025
1. Both the misc. appeals i.e. misc. appeal No. 1999/2020
filed by the claimant-appellant- Kumari Neelam and the misc.
Apeal No. 1474/2020 filed by the appellant/non-claimant- Tata
AIG General Insurance Company Limited arise out of common
judgment and award dated 18.02.2020 passed by the Court of
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dausa (Rajasthan) [for
short ‘the Tribunal’] in case No. 93/2019, Kumari Neelam Vs.
Jaiprakash Natani & Ors, which pertain substantially to the issue
of quantum of compensation, hence they are being decided by this
common judgment.
2. The facts borne out from the pleadings are that the
injured claimant-Ms. Neelam, along with her friend, was walking
from the Polytechnic Campus of the National Institute of
Technology (NIT), Uttarakhand towards the IIT Campus. During
this time, a vehicle bearing registration number UK-12-A-7878,
being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, struck
the claimant with considerable force, as a result, the claimant
sustained grievous injuries, and her companion also suffered
(Downloaded on 18/06/2025 at 10:14:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:23306] (3 of 29) [CMA-1999/2020]
physical harm. Both individuals were immediately taken to Base
Hospital, Srinagar for medical attention.
Subsequently, on the following day, a written report
regarding the incident was lodged by the Registrar of the National
Institute of Technology, Uttarakhand. Based on this report, the
Station House Officer, Police Station Srinagar, District Pauri
Garhwal, registered an FIR No. 55/2018 for the offences under
Sections 279, 337, and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. Following
due investigation, a charge sheet (challan) was filed against the
driver
3. In connection with this incident, the claimant instituted
a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, seeking compensation against the driver, the owner of the
vehicle and the insurance company.
4. In the written statements, the owner and driver denied
any negligence on the part of the driver and contended that the
vehicle in question was duly insured with the insurance company,
thereby seeking dismissal of the claim. The insurance company, in
its reply, challenged the maintainability of the claim on the ground
that the driver was not in possession of a valid and effective
driving licence at the time of the accident. The insurer further
alleged contributory negligence on the part of the claimant and
denied the contents of the petition, praying for its dismissal.
5. The claimant in her claim case asserted that she was 21
years of age at the time of the accident and a Third Year B.Tech.
Student at the National Institute of Technology, Uttarakhand,
which is a renowned institution in the Technical Education.
(Downloaded on 18/06/2025 at 10:14:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:23306] (4 of 29) [CMA-1999/2020]
6. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the Tribunal framed
five issues and proceeded to record evidence. In support of the
claim, the claimant herself appeared as AW-1, produced
documentary evidence marked Exhibits 1 to 28. Additionally,
Ashwani Kumar, Anjuman Praveen, Shrey Gupta, Shanti Devi, and
Hanuman Sahai Meena were examined as AW-2 to AW-6. Notably,
no witnesses were got examined by the respondents in rebuttal.
7. Upon consideration of the evidence adduced and
submissions made, the Tribunal, by its judgment dated
18.02.2020, adjudicated all issues in favour of the claimant. While
holding the respondents jointly and severally liable, the Tribunal
proceeded to award compensation under various heads, the
aggregate amounting to Rs. 1,49,88,153/-. The computation
included:
*** Rs. 97,20,000/- towards loss of income due to permanent
disablement, taking the claimant’s notional monthly income as Rs.
30,000, applying a multiplier of 18, and adding 50% future
prospects;
*** Rs. 35,81,530/- for medical expenses;
*** Rs. 5,00,000/- for future medical treatment;
*** Rs. 21,60,000/- towards attendant charges;
*** Rs. 15,00,000/- for pain, suffering, mental agony, and loss of
amenities;
*** Rs. 3,00,000/- towards loss of marriage prospects;
*** Rs. 3,00,000/- for additional future medical treatment;
*** Rs. 50,000/- towards special diet; Rs. 1,00,000/- under
miscellaneous heads.
8. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded,
the claimant preferred an appeal seeking enhancement of the
amount. Simultaneously, the insurance company filed an appeal
challenging the award primarily on the grounds of alleged absence
(Downloaded on 18/06/2025 at 10:14:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:23306] (5 of 29) [CMA-1999/2020]of a valid driving licence and quantum awarded being excessive
and unjustified.
9. Learned Counsel for the appellant Insurance Company
has also raised an issue that the Tribunal has committed an error
and illegality in awarding the compensation amount in excess to
what has been prayed for by the claimant in the claim petition. He
submitted that the Tribunal cannot award the compensation
beyond the amount prayed in the claim petition. Counsel also
submitted that the Learned Tribunal has assessed the claimant’s
income as ₹30,000 per month without any cogent basis or
supporting evidence on record. This assessment is arbitrary and
contrary to the well-settled principles laid down by various courts
in similar matters. In the absence of documentary proof of
income, the Tribunal ought to have assessed the income in
accordance with the applicable rates under the Minimum Wages
Act, 1984 for a skilled worker.
In support of the aforesaid submissions, counsel has
placed reliance upon judgments delivered in the case of Vishal
Gupta v. Director, I.G.F.R.I and ors., 2021 SCC OnLine All
948; and Navjot Singh v. Harpreet Singh and ors., 2020 0
Supreme (SC) 555.
10. Counsel further submitted that the Tribunal has
erroneously awarded compensation under the head of future
medical expenses twice. As per Clause (b) of Paragraph 22 of the
impugned judgment, a sum of ₹5,00,000 has been awarded, and
again under Clause (g), an additional sum of ₹3,00,000 has been
awarded for the same head. Counsel also submitted that the
(Downloaded on 18/06/2025 at 10:14:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:23306] (6 of 29) [CMA-1999/2020]
compensation under a particular head can only be granted once
and the duplication of this award is liable to be rectified.
11. Counsel further submitted that the compensation of
₹15,00,000 awarded under the head of pain and suffering is
excessive, disproportionate to the injuries sustained, and does not
commensurate with the established judicial norms. He submitted
that the amount of compensation appears to be on the higher
side.
12. Counsel further submitted that the compensation
awarded under the head of attendant charges is also on the higher
side and does not align with the reasonable or actual expenses
that may have been incurred by the claimant and thus the award
under this head, too, deserves reconsideration. Counsel also
submitted that the learned Tribunal has applied an enhancement
of 50% of the assessed income towards future prospects.
However, as per the settled law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, the standard enhancement towards future prospects is
limited to 40%, especially in cases where the claimant is self-
employed or working in the unorganized sector. The deviation
from this standard without justification renders the judgment
unsustainable to that extent. In light of the above submissions,
the Counsel for the appellant Insurance Company submitted that
the impugned award be modified accordingly in the interest of
justice.
13. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellant has
fervently urged this Court to enhance the compensation awarded
by the learned Tribunal, contending that the computation under
several heads is grossly inadequate and fails to do complete
(Downloaded on 18/06/2025 at 10:14:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:23306] (7 of 29) [CMA-1999/2020]
justice in light of the grievous injuries and permanent disability
suffered by the claimant. The counsel submitted that the
assessment of income, as determined at ₹30,000 per month, is on
the lower side and does not commensurate with the qualifications
and future employment prospects of the claimant. Learned
Counsel has placed reliance upon documentary evidence filed
along with the application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908, which includes employment offers and
packages secured by similarly situated individuals, who were
classmates of the claimant during her engineering course. It has
been pointed out that:
*** AW-3, Ms. Anjum, a classmate of the claimant, has been
employed by L&T Infotech with an annual package of ₹5,00,000; **** Another classmate, Mr. Shrey Gupta, has received an annual
package of ₹6,00,000;
*** In general, other students from the same cohort have secured
employment packages ranging from ₹5 to ₹6 lakhs per annum.
14. Counsel further submitted that the Rajasthan Public
Service Commission (RPSC) had issued an advertisement for
recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer, wherein the pay matrix
level is stated to be Level-10 (₹56,100 per month). These facts,
according to learned counsel, clearly establish that the income
assessed by the Tribunal at ₹30,000 per month is not only
unrealistic but also grossly underestimates the actual earning
potential of the claimant, had the accident not occurred. The
counsel thus submitted that the assessed income be suitably
enhanced to reflect these realities.
(Downloaded on 18/06/2025 at 10:14:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:23306] (8 of 29) [CMA-1999/2020]
15. With regard to the compensation awarded under the
head of future medical treatment, the counsel submitted that the
Tribunal has rightly awarded amounts under two sub-heads,
taking into consideration the ongoing and distinct medical needs of
the claimant. The first component accounts for the regular
physiotherapy sessions required due to the nature of the disability,
and the second pertains to the daily medical procedures and
assistance necessary for the claimant’s continued well-being, thus
these heads are separate in nature and warrant separate awards,
which has been rightly done by the Tribunal. The counsel further
submitted that on the issue of attendant charges, the
compensation awarded is wholly inadequate. The learned Tribunal
has calculated the same based on daily wages, which correspond
to a standard 8-hour workday. However, in the case of the
claimant, who is suffering from a severe and permanent disability,
the need for a full-time (24-hours) attendant is undisputed,
therefore he submitted that the computation ought to have taken
into account the requirement of round-the-clock care and must be
revised accordingly.
16. The Counsel further submitted that under the head of
pain and suffering, only a sum of ₹15,00,000 has been awarded,
which is not just and fair in light of the grievous and lifelong
disability suffered by the claimant.
In support of his submissions, learned Counsel has
referred to the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of
Ghanshyam v. Amar Singh and ors., 2025:RJ-JP:20178,
wherein ₹25,00,000 was awarded under the same head in a case
involving 100% disability due to amputation of both lower limbs.
(Downloaded on 18/06/2025 at 10:14:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:23306] (9 of 29) [CMA-1999/2020]
He submitted that the present case being of a similar nature,
warrants a comparable, if not higher, compensation.
Counsel further submitted that a meager sum of Rs.
3,00,000/- has been awarded under the head of loss of marriage
prospects, which, given the irreversible physical and emotional
consequences faced by the claimant, is neither fair nor adequate.
The claimant, being a young woman with bright career prospects
prior to the accident, has suffered a substantial diminution in her
prospects of leading a normal marital and social life. He thus
submitted that, accordingly, a higher sum is justifiable and may be
awarded under this head.
Counsel lastly submitted that in light of the overall facts
and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, the
Court is empowered to award compensation in excess of the
amount originally claimed in the petition. In this regard, reliance is
placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
SLP(C) No. 29207 of 2018]. In view of the foregoing
submissions, learned counsel prays that the compensation
awarded by the learned Tribunal be suitably enhanced under the
relevant heads, so as to ensure fair and just recompense to the
claimant for the injuries and losses suffered by her.
17. At the very outset, this Court deems it appropriate to
address the legal issue raised by the learned counsel for the
Insurance Company concerning the quantum of compensation
awarded by the learned Tribunal, which, according to the counsel,
exceeds the amount originally claimed by the claimant.
In this regard, it is pertinent to refer to the
authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
(Downloaded on 18/06/2025 at 10:14:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:23306] (10 of 29) [CMA-1999/2020]
cases of Mona Baghel and Others v. Sajjan Singh Yadav and
Others [Civil Appeal No. of 2022 arising out of SLP(C) No.
29207 of 2018], reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 734,
wherein the judgment was rendered on 30th August 2022. In the
said decision, the Apex Court, while relying upon its earlier
judgment in Ramla and Others v. National Insurance
Company Limited and Others [(2019) 2 SCC 192],
categorically held that there is no legal impediment preventing the
Court from awarding compensation exceeding the amount claimed
by the petitioners. The Hon’ble Court clarified that the duty of the
Tribunal and the Courts is to ensure just and fair compensation, in
consonance with the principles laid down under the Motor Vehicles
Act, and that such entitlement cannot be curtailed merely on the
ground that the amount awarded surpasses the sum initially
claimed. The relevant para of the Ramla judgment is quoted as
under:
“5. Though the claimants had claimed a total
compensation of Rs 25,00,000 in their claim petition
filed before the Tribunal, we feel that the compensation
which the claimants are entitled to is higher than the
same as mentioned supra. There is no restriction that
the Court cannot award compensation exceeding the
claimed amount, since the function of the Tribunal or
court under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
is to award “just compensation”. The Motor Vehicles Act
is a beneficial and welfare legislation. A “just
compensation” is one which is reasonable on the basis
of evidence produced on record. It cannot be said to
have become time-barred. Further, there is no need for
a new cause of action to claim an enhanced amount.
The courts are duty-bound to award just compensation.
[See the judgments of this Courtin (a) Nagappa v.
Gurudayal Singh [Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh, (2003)
2 SCC 274 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 523] , (b) Magma General
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram [Magma General
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130] ,
(c) Ibrahim v. Raju [Ibrahim v. Raju, (2011) 10 SCC
634 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 1053 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri)
120] ].”
(Downloaded on 18/06/2025 at 10:14:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:23306] (11 of 29) [CMA-1999/2020]
18. In light of the above binding precedent, the objection
raised by the Insurance Company with respect to the
compensation exceeding the claimed amount is untenable and
liable to be rejected. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the
said contention.
19. Before deciding the issue of quantum of compensation
under various heads to be awarded to the claimant in view of the
submissions made by the counsels for the parties this court would
like to point out the issues and considerations to be met by this
Court or Tribunal while computing the amount of compensation
under various heads in a case of motor accident claim.
20. A single moment can change the course of an entire
life. For a 21-year-old girl pursuing an engineering degree, a
motor vehicle accident that causes 100% disability of the lower
body is not merely a medical condition–it is a life-altering event
that affects her physically, emotionally, socially, and economically.
The trauma of such an accident, particularly at such a formative
stage of life, demands not only recognition but adequate and
enhanced compensation. This compensation is not charity–it is a
rightful acknowledgment of the permanent damages inflicted on
her ability to live a full, independent, and dignified life.
21. Before the accident, the young woman was a promising
student on the brink of launching a professional career. She had
aspirations, likely including employment in the engineering sector,
further studies, or entrepreneurship. The accident brutally
interrupted her journey.
22. With 100% lower-body disability, she is now paralyzed
below the waist. Her body no longer responds in ways it used to,
(Downloaded on 18/06/2025 at 10:14:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:23306] (12 of 29) [CMA-1999/2020]
which results not just in physical limitation but also emotional
trauma. The loss of autonomy can create a profound sense of grief
and helplessness, especially for someone who was previously
independent.
23. This irreversible change necessitates a re-evaluation of
her entire future. The dreams she once harbored–building a
career, living independently, traveling, even forming relationships
or starting a family–are now constrained by disability.
24. When that accident results in a 21-year-old girl
becoming completely paralyzed below the waist, the impact
extends far beyond physical injury. At an age when most young
adults are discovering their independence, pursuing education,
building relationships, and imagining a future filled with
opportunities, such a life-altering injury not only impairs the body
but deeply affects the psyche, emotions, social identity, and the
very structure of the victim’s family life.
25. At 21, a girl is typically at the threshold of adulthood.
She is learning to make decisions for herself, managing her
studies, engaging socially, and beginning to envision a career and
a life of independence. A catastrophic accident that leaves her
paralyzed below the waist abruptly halts this momentum. Her
newfound physical limitations mean she may now be dependent
on a wheelchair and require assistance for activities of daily living
–such as bathing, dressing, and using the toilet. This constant
dependence can severely affect her sense of self-worth and
autonomy. The freedom she once took for granted is now a luxury.
Public infrastructure in many regions remains inaccessible for
(Downloaded on 18/06/2025 at 10:14:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:23306] (13 of 29) [CMA-1999/2020]
persons with disabilities, making even simple outings or travel
difficult and often humiliating.
26. Psychologically, this dramatic shift can lead to feelings
of helplessness, frustration, anxiety, and depression. The isolation
that comes with immobility, combined with the constant
awareness of how different life has become, often results in a loss
of confidence and motivation. The fear of being seen as a burden
–to herself or others–can become emotionally overwhelming.
27. In Indian society, romantic relationships and marriage
are often influenced by traditional ideas of physical wellness,
beauty, and social perceptions. A 21-year-old girl with full mobility
and education would ordinarily be considered to have favorable
marital prospects. However, after such a debilitating injury, her
chances of finding a romantic partner or entering into marriage
may drastically diminish–not because of her worth as a person,
but because of deeply rooted societal biases.
28. There is often a social stigma attached to disability.
People may assume that a paralyzed individual is incapable of
being a romantic partner, of managing a household, or of bearing
and raising children–even though these assumptions are
frequently incorrect. Many potential partners or their families may
reject her not because of who she is, but because of what they
perceive her physical condition to mean. These attitudes severely
limit her opportunity to experience romantic companionship or
marriage, despite her emotional and intellectual capacities
remaining intact.
29. Even if she does find someone who loves and accepts
her, she may hesitate to enter into a relationship due to internal
(Downloaded on 18/06/2025 at 10:14:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:23306] (14 of 29) [CMA-1999/2020]
fears–fear of rejection, fear of being seen as a burden, or fear of
not being able to meet traditional expectations of a partner or
spouse. She might question her own desirability, despite deserving
love as much as any other person.
30. Moreover, physical intimacy, an important part of
romantic relationships, may be affected due to paralysis. This, too,
may discourage potential partners, especially in societies where
open conversations around disability and sexuality are still taboo.
Consequently, the emotional toll of possibly being deprived of
romantic companionship or family life can be devastating. The
family of a young girl who becomes paralyzed faces immense
challenges–both emotional and financial. Initially, there is the
trauma of the accident itself. Parents, siblings, and close relatives
must come to terms with the fact that a healthy, active young girl
has now become permanently disabled. This realization is often
accompanied by grief, guilt, and helplessness.
31. Emotionally, families experience a long grieving process
–not just for what has happened, but for what has been lost: her
dreams, her career, her social life, and perhaps her marriage and
motherhood. Parents often carry the emotional burden of believing
they should have somehow protected their child. Watching her
struggle with depression, frustration, and isolation takes a deep
toll on their mental health.
32. The 100% lower-body paralysis of a 21-year-old girl
due to a motor accident is not just an injury–it is a deep,
enduring rupture in the fabric of her life. It affects her sense of
identity, her independence, and her confidence. It places barriers
(Downloaded on 18/06/2025 at 10:14:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:23306] (15 of 29) [CMA-1999/2020]
on her path to love, companionship, and family life, and creates a
heavy burden for those who love and support her.
33. The physical paralysis is only part of the pain. The
emotional, social, and psychological consequences are just as
significant–and often more difficult to heal. Any support or
compensation she receives must acknowledge not just the cost of
medical care, but the loss of opportunities, dignity, and dreams.
34. Enhanced support, whether from the legal system or
society at large, is not a favor–it is a necessary step toward
justice, inclusion, and human dignity.
35. The psychological burden of a traumatic injury,
particularly one as severe as paraplegia, cannot be overstated.
The shock, pain, and subsequent adaptation to a new way of living
often bring about long-term emotional consequences, including
depression, anxiety, social withdrawal, and a sense of isolation.
36. At the age of 21, when most of her peers are exploring
life, relationships, and careers, she may find herself facing
exclusion. Social stigma surrounding disability still exists. She
might be pitied, treated as fragile, or completely left out of social
events and opportunities. The emotional toll of being “different”
and the constant comparison with her former self and able-bodied
peers is deeply scarring.
37. Psychological therapy, counseling, and emotional
support become lifelong needs–another facet that compensation
must account for.
38. In cases of grievous and permanent disability, such as
100% paralysis of the lower body, the courts must adopt a
comprehensive approach to determine just compensation. This
(Downloaded on 18/06/2025 at 10:14:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:23306] (16 of 29) [CMA-1999/2020]
approach must include not only medical and financial implications
but also the irreversible disruption of personal autonomy,
educational potential, professional aspirations, and social well-
being.
39. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act mandates that
the Tribunal shall determine “just compensation” for victims of
motor accidents. The Supreme Court of India has consistently
interpreted this provision in a broad, liberal manner in favor of
victims (Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343). “Just
compensation” does not imply a merely mathematical calculation
of hospital bills or loss of income; it includes a holistic evaluation
of pain, suffering, loss of amenities, future medical needs, and the
impact on life trajectory. As noted in Erudhaya Priya v. State
Express Transport Corporation Ltd. (2020) 10 SCC 486, the
Court emphasized that when a young girl suffers 100% permanent
disability, the compensation must reflect her loss of future
prospects, marriageability, and independent life.
40. In light of the above observation and taking into
consideration the relevant case laws the issue as regards the
quantum of compensation under various heads is being assessed
by the court as under.
I. LOSS OF FUTURE EARNINGS AND PROFESSIONAL POTENTIAL:
At the time of the accident, the victim was a 21-year-
old engineering student, meaning she was on the threshold of
launching her professional career. Engineering is a profession that
often requires physical mobility, on-site work, and long hours–all
(Downloaded on 18/06/2025 at 10:14:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:23306] (17 of 29) [CMA-1999/2020]
of which are compromised or rendered impossible by lower-body
paralysis.
Applying the principles from K. Suresh v. New India
Assurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 12 SCC 274, the loss of earning
capacity must be assessed not merely on current income (which
may be zero or minimal for a student), but on the reasonable
expectation of future income. In the present case, a qualified
engineer could expect to earn Rs. 5-12 lakhs per annum within 2-
3 years of graduation. The Court must also consider that due to
the disability, the victim’s choice of jobs is severely limited,
possibly confined to sedentary roles that do not match her field of
training. This amounts to a “loss of livelihood in chosen field”, a
recognized head of compensation as per Malay Kumar Ganguly
v. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee, (2009) 9 SCC 221. The counsel for
the Insurance Company has referred to certain judgments of the
Courts wherein it has been observed that the income of the
claimant/injured having skill is required to be assessed at least in
accordance with the minimum wages applicable at the relevant
time. The case so referred to by the counsel is quoted as under:-
“7. Be that as it may, a student, who was near
completion of engineering degree was mature enough
to earn at least for his own bare sustenance. He would
be, at least, entitled to be treated at par with a skilled
workman with reference to the provisions contained in
the Minimum Wages Act and the Payment of Wages
Act….”
As can be observed the peculiar word used is ‘at least’,
it has been stated that the income of a skilled claimant ought to
be assessed at least in accordance with the minimum wages
applicable at the relevant time. It is important, however, to draw
(Downloaded on 18/06/2025 at 10:14:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:23306] (18 of 29) [CMA-1999/2020]
attention to the deliberate and significant use of the expression “at
least”. This term clearly indicates a lower threshold, not a fixed or
maximum limit. The phrase “at least” implies that minimum wages
represent the baseline or starting point for the assessment of
income in cases involving skilled individuals or those nearing
completion of a professional qualification, such as engineering. It
does not suggest that compensation must be restricted to this
figure alone. On the contrary, the use of this terminology leaves
room–indeed, opens the door–for the Court to consider awarding
compensation based on a higher notional income, depending on
the facts and circumstances of each case, including the potential
and qualifications of the claimant. Therefore, the proposition
advanced by the Insurance Company cannot be accepted as a
rigid rule, as it ignores the judicial intent that minimum wages are
only the minimum benchmark–not the ceiling–for assessing fair
and just compensation based on evidence.
Furthermore, in the present case, the claimant-
appellant has filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, placing on record additional documents
pertaining to the placement packages received by her classmates.
Upon perusal of the said documents, it is evident that the lowest
annual package offered to one of her contemporaries amounts to
₹5,00,000 per annum. In view of this documentary evidence, and
considering that the claimant-appellant was similarly qualified and
placed, it would be reasonable and just to assess her notional
annual income at ₹5,00,000, even while adopting a conservative
approach. In assessing the notional income of the claimant-
appellant, it is only fair, equitable, and in consonance with the
(Downloaded on 18/06/2025 at 10:14:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:23306] (19 of 29) [CMA-1999/2020]
principles of just compensation to adopt this lowest package as
the benchmark. This approach ensures that the assessment does
not rest on conjecture or inflated estimations but is firmly
anchored in tangible and contemporaneous evidence reflecting the
realistic earning potential of the claimant-appellant. Choosing the
lowest package–as opposed to an average or higher figure–
further demonstrates restraint and prudence, thereby ruling out
any possibility of exaggeration in the computation. Additionally, in
accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
with regard to the inclusion of future prospects, it would be
appropriate to add 40% (in place of 50% as allowed by the
Tribunal) of the annual income towards future prospects, which
amounts to ₹2,00,000. Therefore, the total annual income for the
purpose of assessing loss of future income would come to
₹7,00,000. Applying the multiplier of 18, as applicable to the age
of the claimant-appellant in accordance with the principles laid
down in Sarla Verma v. DTC, the total compensation under the
head of ‘Loss of Future Income’ comes to ₹1,26,00,000 (i.e.,
₹7,00,000 × 18).
II. LOSS OF MARRIAGE PROSPECTS AND SOCIAL OPPORTUNITIES:
Indian society often links a woman’s worth to her
physical and social functionality, particularly in the context of
marriage. A young woman with a disability, especially one so
visible and extensive, is likely to face significant stigma in
matrimonial prospects.
The emotional weight of knowing that her chances at
romantic partnerships or motherhood may be reduced or lost
(Downloaded on 18/06/2025 at 10:14:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:23306] (20 of 29) [CMA-1999/2020]
entirely is a form of emotional trauma in itself. The accident has
not only disabled her physically, but it may also deny her social
opportunities, companionship, and familial stability.
Courts have, in various judgments, acknowledged this
loss. The inability to marry or lead a family life is considered a
serious social and emotional loss, and compensation must include
it as an independent head. In Kumari Renuka v. N.S. Suresh
(Karnataka High Court, 2007), the court observed that
disability may seriously impair the possibility of marriage, and in
Indian society, where stigma and stereotypes persist, the social
impact is often more severe for women.
The right to marry and form a family is a fundamental
human right protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. Denial
of such an opportunity, even indirectly due to a third party’s
negligence, mandates a compensatory remedy. The courts must
factor in this intangible but real consequence. The hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor
Ahmad Simon, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3692, while dealing with
the enhancement appeal in an accident claim case of a baby girl
held that as a result of an accident like this the appellant will also
miss out on partaking in activities which they would have normally
done, if they had not met with such accidents. Further, the Court
also held that in such cases the appellant essentially loses their
adulthood. Remarking that marriage/companionship is an integral
part of the natural life of a human being, the Court noted that it is
near impossible for the appellant to rear children and enjoy the
simple pleasures of marital life and companionship.
(Downloaded on 18/06/2025 at 10:14:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:23306] (21 of 29) [CMA-1999/2020]
It is a settled principle that the impact of an injury or
loss must be assessed not only in terms of economic damage but
also in light of social consequences, particularly where societal
attitudes impose additional burdens on the individual. In the
present case, the claimant is an unmarried woman. It is a
regrettable reality that in many strata of our society, unmarried
women are often viewed through a different lens, with heightened
vulnerability and social stigma, particularly when they have
suffered injuries affecting their future prospects, both matrimonial
and otherwise. Taking into account the prevalent societal norms
and the disproportionate adversity faced by unmarried women in
such situations — including but not limited to diminished marriage
prospects, emotional distress, and increased familial pressure —
this Court deems it appropriate to enhance the amount from Rs. 3
lakhs and to award the sum of 5,00,000 (Rupees Five Lakhs only)
under the head of loss of marriage prospects. This award is
granted not merely as compensation for emotional and social
hardship but as a recognition of the unique challenges faced by
the claimant in navigating a society that often measures a
woman’s worth through her marital status.
III. PHYSICAL AND EMOTIONAL SUFFERING, LOSS OF
AMENITIES, AND LIFE DIGNITY:
Permanent paraplegia brings with it not just medical
expenses, but a lifetime of suffering–loss of mobility, privacy, and
independence. Everyday tasks such as using the restroom,
dressing, or commuting now require assistance. As held in Raj
Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, the quantification of compensation must
also account for:
(Downloaded on 18/06/2025 at 10:14:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:23306] (22 of 29) [CMA-1999/2020]
* Permanent pain and discomfort.
* The need for lifelong personal assistance (caregivers, mobility
aids, wheelchairs, physiotherapy).
* Emotional trauma, depression, anxiety, and social withdrawal.
* Loss of ability to participate in recreation, sports, or even normal
social outings.
These heads fall under “non-pecuniary losses,” which
must not be minimized. In Kavita v. Deepak, (2012) 8 SCC
604, the Court upheld a substantial award for loss of amenities to
a young woman rendered paraplegic, noting that such losses
affect the victim’s self-esteem and dignity.
While determining just compensation, it is incumbent
upon this Court to adopt a comprehensive and humane approach,
particularly where the claimant has suffered irreversible and life-
altering injuries. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in *Kajal v. Jagdish
Chand*, (2020) 4 SCC 413, has laid down in unequivocal terms
that in cases involving 100% disability — whether mental or
physical — the Courts must take a liberal view while awarding
compensation. It was specifically observed that compensation is to
be granted only once, and hence, the Court must factor in not
merely the physical impairment but also the enduring mental
trauma, emotional agony, and diminished quality of life resulting
from such catastrophic injuries.
The above principle has been echoed and applied by
this Court in Ghanshyam v. Amar Singh & Ors., S.B. Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1390/2019, decided on
13.05.2025, wherein this Court awarded ₹25,00,000 (Rupees
Twenty-Five Lakhs only) under the head of pain and suffering to a
(Downloaded on 18/06/2025 at 10:14:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:23306] (23 of 29) [CMA-1999/2020]claimant who had lost both legs in a motor vehicle accident,
noting the compounded psychological, emotional, and social
suffering endured by the individual as a result of the trauma.
41. In the present case, the claimant, an unmarried
woman, has unfortunately suffered total and permanent paralysis.
This Court cannot overlook the harrowing reality that such a
disability inflicts untold physical hardship and deep psychological
scars that persist throughout life. It is not merely the inability to
walk or perform daily activities independently that must be
compensated, but also the loss of dignity, social isolation, anxiety
about the future, and profound emotional anguish that accompany
such a condition.
Taking into account the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Kajal (supra) and this Court’s own decision in
Ghanshyam (supra), and having regard to the facts and peculiar
circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the considered
opinion that an amount of ₹25,00,000 (Rupees Twenty-Five Lakhs
only) under the head of pain and suffering would be just, fair, and
reasonable. Accordingly, the amount under this head is enhanced
from Rs.15 lakhs to Rs.25 lakhs. This amount is awarded to
acknowledge not only the physical trauma but also the prolonged
and continuing mental suffering, and the irreversible impact on
the claimant’s quality of life and dignity.
IV. COST OF FUTURE MEDICAL CARE AND PERSONAL
ASSISTANCE:
Paralysis is not a condition that ends with hospital
discharge. It brings a lifetime of dependency on medical
equipment, home modifications, caregivers, and frequent
(Downloaded on 18/06/2025 at 10:14:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:23306] (24 of 29) [CMA-1999/2020]checkups. Under Indian legal precedent, the Tribunal must
anticipate the victim’s medical expenses not just for immediate
recovery, but lifelong care. A paraplegic patient typically requires:
* A custom wheelchair and other assistive devices.
* Periodic physiotherapy and rehabilitation sessions.
* Home adaptations: ramps, accessible bathrooms, special
bedding.
* Regular medication and checkups to prevent complications like
pressure sores or infections.
* A full-time or part-time caregiver to assist with daily tasks.
* The claimant will certainly require conveyance while going for
treatment.
Over an expected life span of 50 more years, this totals
over lakhs of money, even conservatively. The compensation must
be structured to ensure sustainability and not force the family into
debt or dependence. The recurring cost of living with a disability is
significant and must be factored into any compensation. The
financial burden of this care cannot be placed solely on the
shoulders of her family. Hence, the Court deems just and proper
and reasonable to allow total Rs.8 lakhs in total under this head.
V. ATTENDANT CHARGES:
In cases where the claimant has suffered complete paralysis
from the waist down, the loss is not merely of mobility, but of
basic physical autonomy. A person paralyzed below the waist loses
control over fundamental bodily functions, including walking,
sitting, bathing, toileting, dressing, and in many cases, even the
ability to turn in bed without assistance. The consequences of
such a condition are not temporary or partial — they are
(Downloaded on 18/06/2025 at 10:14:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:23306] (25 of 29) [CMA-1999/2020]permanent, life-altering, and demand full-time care, round the
clock.
This Court is conscious of the fact that in such a state,
the claimant becomes entirely dependent on others for daily living
activities. It is not reasonable to expect that family members
alone can provide such intensive care consistently over the long
term, without physical, emotional, and financial strain. The
appointment of a trained, professional attendant — available 24
hours a day — becomes not just desirable but medically and
practically essential for the survival, safety, and dignity of the
claimant.
The need for a full-time caregiver is further magnified
by the risk of secondary medical complications, all of which
require close monitoring and preventive care. Additionally, the
psychological well-being of the claimant — who must now adjust
to a life of total physical dependency — also necessitates the
presence of a constant caregiver for emotional support and
reassurance.
Thus, the requirement of a 24-hour attendant is not a
luxury, but a bare minimum necessity for someone rendered
paraplegic due to the accident. It is a medically and humanely
indispensable aspect of the claimant’s ongoing care and
rehabilitation. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view
that the cost for engaging a permanent full-time attendant must
be duly factored in while computing compensation under the head
of future medical expenses or attendant charges.
This Court is clearly of the view that the basic amount
earlier considered by the Tribunal for determining attendant
(Downloaded on 18/06/2025 at 10:14:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:23306] (26 of 29) [CMA-1999/2020]charges is adequate, especially in light of the claimant’s condition.
The claimant, a young girl, has unfortunately been rendered
permanently bedridden due to the injuries sustained in the
accident. She suffers from severe incontinence, which means she
lacks control over basic bodily functions such as urination and
defecation. As she grows older, she will not be able to manage her
menstrual hygiene on her own. The nature of her condition
necessitates continuous and comprehensive personal care.
Given the extent of her disability, it is evident that the
claimant will require the assistance of an attendant virtually round
the clock. While the attendant need not be medically trained, it is
imperative that they be capable of handling a child with such
extensive needs — someone who is bedridden, incontinent, and at
constant risk of developing complications such as bedsores. The
attendant would be responsible not only for hygiene and physical
support but also for providing basic emotional reassurance and
ensuring that the claimant is treated with dignity. Considering
inflation and the need for reliable and dedicated care, this Court
reasonably assesses the cost of engaging attendants at ₹10,000
per month, owing to the requirement of uninterrupted 24-hour
care. Accordingly, the monthly expense towards attendant charges
is fixed at ₹10,000, translating to an annual expenditure of
₹1,20,000.
Applying the multiplier method — and considering the
claimant’s young age and the permanent nature of her disability —
the it was appropriate to apply a multiplier of 18. Thus, the total
amount awarded under the head of attendant charges assessed by
the Tribunal at ₹21,60,000 (Rupees Twenty-One Lakhs Sixty
(Downloaded on 18/06/2025 at 10:14:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:23306] (27 of 29) [CMA-1999/2020]Thousand only) is just reasonable and does not call for any
interference. This figure is intended to comprehensively cover all
pecuniary damages relating to the claimant’s need for full-time
care for the remainder of her life.
Finally, any compensation must reflect constitutional
values–especially Article 21 (right to life with dignity), Article 14
(equality before law), and Article 15 (protection against
discrimination, including on disability grounds). Denial of adequate
compensation amounts to a second injustice–compounding the
original wrong with institutional apathy.
In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi,
(2017) 16 SCC 680, the Constitution Bench emphasized that
compensation must ensure “social justice to the victim.” Enhanced
compensation is not charity–it is a legal and moral imperative.
In view of the above reasoning, it is evident that the
life of a 21-year-old engineering student has been irreversibly
altered due to the accident. The impact is multidimensional–
economic, emotional, social, and existential. Applying the
principles of restitution in integrum (restoring to original condition
as far as money can), coupled with constitutional guarantees and
judicial precedents, the Tribunal and appellate courts must award
enhanced compensation that reflects the gravity of the loss,
ensuring a life of dignity and independence for the victim to the
extent possible. The law must not treat such an accident as just a
case of personal injury. It must see it for what it truly is: a
permanent, devastating change to the life of a young woman. The
path she was walking has been shattered–not by fate, but by
someone’s negligence.
(Downloaded on 18/06/2025 at 10:14:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:23306] (28 of 29) [CMA-1999/2020]
Enhanced compensation is not a windfall; it is a moral
and legal necessity. It is an attempt by the justice system to at
least partially restore what was taken from her–a future, a body,
a chance to live on her own terms. Anything less would be an
injustice too great to ignore.
Her accident was not her fault. It was a consequence of
someone else’s negligence. That negligence has now sentenced
her to a life of limitation and hardship. If the justice system fails
to acknowledge this suffering with adequate compensation, it adds
insult to injury. The law must not merely count the rupees lost,
but the dreams denied.
42. In view of the discussion made above, the award for
compensation is modified in different heads as under:-
a. Medical expenses and other expenses Rs.3,58,153/-
during hospitalization
b. Future medical treatment + conveyance Rs.8,00,000/-
c. On the account of loss of earning Rs.1,26,00,000/-
capacity
d. Attendant charges Rs.21,60,000/-
e. Pain, Suffering, Mental Agony and Loss of Rs.25,00,000/-
Amenities
f. Loss of Marriage Prospects Rs.5,00,000/-
g. Special Diet Rs.50,000/-
h. Conveyance Rs.1,00,000/-
Total Rs.19068153/-
43. The claimant would be entitled for interest on the
enhanced amount as per the terms of the judgment of the learned
Tribunal by treating this enhanced amount to be the part of the
original award.
(Downloaded on 18/06/2025 at 10:14:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:23306] (29 of 29) [CMA-1999/2020]
44. Apart from the FDRs ordered by the tribunal in
Paragraph 26 of its judgment, 50% of the enhanced amount shall
also be kept in the form of FDR for a period of 7 years and
remaining 50% of the enhanced amount shall be released to the
claimant.
45. The interest amount calculated on the enhanced
amount shall also be kept in the FDR for a period of 10 years.
46. Both the misc. appeals disposed of, as above.
47. In view of the judgment passed in the main appeals,
the stay application and pending application/s, if any, also stand
disposed of.
48. Registry is directed to place a copy of this Judgment in
the connected case file.
49. Registry is directed to send back the record of the case,
if any, to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.
(GANESH RAM MEENA,VJ),J
Sharma NK/Dy. Registrar
(Downloaded on 18/06/2025 at 10:14:31 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)