2026 INSC 676
Ku. Chetna Sharma v. Pawan Sharma & Ors.
Civil Appeal No. 8809 of 2026
Supreme Court of India
Judgment dated 08.07.2026
Coram: N. Kotiswar Singh and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.
HEAD NOTES
1. Motor Vehicles Act — Compensation — Permanently paralysed five-year-old child — Further enhancement — Paras 2–9
A five-year-old child sustained grievous spinal injuries in a motor accident caused by rash and negligent driving and was rendered permanently paralysed. The Tribunal awarded ₹14,84,233/-, which was enhanced by ₹6,00,000/- by the High Court. The Supreme Court further enhanced the compensation to ₹87,15,137/-, applying the principles laid down in Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon. Paras 2–9.
2. Permanent disability of child — Functional disability — Disability certificate showing 80% — Lifetime paralysis — Disability assessed at 100% — Para 5
Although the medical certificates reflected 80% disability, the examining doctor categorically stated that the disability would continue throughout the lifetime of the child.
Considering the permanent nature and consequences of the paralysis, the Supreme Court held that the child's disability had to be taken as 100% for purposes of compensation. Para 5.
3. Notional earning capacity — Minimum wages of skilled labourer — Future prospects — Multiplier of 18 — Para 5
For determining loss of earning capacity of the five-year-old child, the Court adopted the minimum wages applicable to a skilled labourer in 2018, amounting to ₹9,560/- per month.
The Court:
added 40% towards future prospects; and
applied a multiplier of 18.
The resulting compensation for loss of earning capacity was ₹28,90,944/-. Para 5 and Para 8.
4. Paraplegic/paralysed child — Skilled attendant required — Attendant expenses based on skilled minimum wages — Paras 4, 7–8
A permanently paralysed child cannot reasonably be treated as requiring ordinary attendant assistance. The Court held that a skilled attendant would be necessary to care for the child and meet her continuing needs.
Accordingly, attendant expenses were calculated on the basis of skilled minimum wages:
₹9,560 × 12 × 18 = ₹20,64,960/-.
Paras 4, 7–8.
5. Future medical and care expenses — Recurring expenditure — Incontinence — Diapers and catheter — Para 7
The Court recognised that permanent paralysis creates a continuing financial burden upon the parents/caregivers.
The child suffered from incontinence and would require recurring expenditure towards:
diapers;
occasional catheter use;
physiotherapy; and
continuing care.
Although ₹10,000/- per month was claimed, the Court considered ₹5,000/- per month reasonable and capitalised it using the multiplier of 18.
The amount awarded under this head was ₹10,80,000/-. Para 7.
6. Pain and suffering — Serious lifelong consequences of childhood paralysis — Para 8
The Court awarded ₹15,00,000/- towards pain and suffering, having regard to the grave and permanent consequences of the injuries sustained by a five-year-old child.
Para 8.
7. Loss of marriage prospects — Permanent disability from childhood — Para 8
The Court awarded ₹5,00,000/- towards loss of marriage prospects, recognising the long-term consequences of permanent paralysis suffered from childhood. Para 8.
8. Discomfort and inconvenience — Included within pain and suffering — Para 6
The Tribunal had awarded ₹25,000/- towards discomfort and inconvenience.
The Supreme Court held that this amount was already covered by the compensation awarded under pain and suffering and consequently deleted the separate amount of ₹25,000/- under that head. Para 6.
9. Medical expenditure — 58 days' hospitalisation — Incidental expenses — Paras 3 and 8
The Court retained ₹5,54,233/- towards medical expenditure and awarded ₹25,000/- towards incidental expenses during the 58 days of hospitalisation. Para 8.
10. Transportation and special diet — Para 8
The Court awarded ₹1,00,000/- towards transportation and special diet. Para 8.
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
1. Accident involving a five-year-old child — Para 2
On 23.06.2018, the five-year-old appellant was travelling with her mother and grandmother when the vehicle met with an accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of a car.
The child suffered grievous spinal injuries and was rendered permanently paralysed. Para 2.
2. Award by Tribunal
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded:
₹14,84,233/-
as compensation.
The claimant appealed to the High Court seeking enhancement.
The High Court enhanced the award by a further:
₹6,00,000/-
The child thereafter approached the Supreme Court seeking further enhancement. Para 2.
II. BASIS OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT
The appellant relied principally upon:
Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon & Anr.
2024 SCC OnLine SC 3692
That case concerned a seven-year-old child who had been paralysed in a motor accident.
The appellant contended that the principles used in that case should be applied to the present case, with suitable enhancement because the accident here occurred in 2018, whereas the accident in Baby Sakshi Greola occurred in 2009.
Para 3–4.
III. PRINCIPLE ADOPTED BY THE SUPREME COURT
The Supreme Court expressly found that Baby Sakshi Greola applied squarely to the present case.
However, the Court considered it appropriate to make a reasonable upward adjustment because of the increase in the cost of living between 2009 and 2018.
Para 4.
This is important because the Court did not mechanically reproduce the earlier award. It used the earlier decision as the governing framework and adjusted the figures to the circumstances of the present accident.
IV. EVIDENCE AND MEDICAL BASIS
The medical material consisted principally of:
disability certificates; and
the deposition of the examining doctor.
The certificates showed 80% disability.
However, the doctor categorically stated that the disability would remain for the lifetime of the child.
The Supreme Court therefore looked beyond the numerical percentage appearing in the certificate and considered the actual functional and lifelong consequence of the spinal injury.
The result was an assessment of:
100% disability for compensation purposes.
Para 5.
V. COMPUTATION OF LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITY
The Court adopted:
Minimum wages of skilled labourer in 2018 = ₹9,560/- per month
Then:
₹9,560 × 140% × 12 × 18
This resulted in:
₹28,90,944/-
towards loss of earning capacity.
The 140% figure represents:
100% of the base income; plus
40% towards future prospects.
Para 5 and Item 1 of Para 8.
VI. ATTENDANT EXPENSES
The Court recognised a significant distinction between an ordinary injured person and a permanently paralysed child.
A child in such condition would require continuing and specialised assistance.
Therefore, attendant charges were not assessed on an ordinary or nominal basis.
The Court treated the appropriate attendant as a skilled attendant and adopted the same skilled minimum wage:
₹9,560 × 12 × 18
₹20,64,960/-
was awarded towards attendant expenses.
Paras 4 and 8.
VII. FUTURE CARE — PARTICULAR IMPORTANCE
This is another significant aspect of the judgment.
The appellant specifically pleaded that the child would incur continuing expenditure because of her permanent condition and incontinence.
The claim included expenses towards:
physiotherapy;
diapers; and
occasional catheter use.
The Court accepted the underlying principle that such expenses would continue throughout the child's life.
Although the claim was:
₹10,000/- per month,
the Court considered:
₹5,000/- per month
to be appropriate.
Applying the multiplier of 18:
₹5,000 × 12 × 18 = ₹10,80,000/-
was awarded towards future care.
Para 7.
VIII. HEAD-WISE COMPUTATION
| Sl. No. | Head of Compensation | Computation / Basis | Amount |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Loss of earning capacity | ₹9,560 × 140% × 12 × 18 | ₹28,90,944 |
| 2 | Medical expenditure | As established | ₹5,54,233 |
| 3 | Incidental expenses during 58 days' hospitalisation | Reasonable amount | ₹25,000 |
| 4 | Attendant expenses | ₹9,560 × 12 × 18 | ₹20,64,960 |
| 5 | Pain and suffering | Having regard to lifelong paralysis | ₹15,00,000 |
| 6 | Loss of marriage prospects | Permanent disability from childhood | ₹5,00,000 |
| 7 | Future care | ₹5,000 × 12 × 18 | ₹10,80,000 |
| 8 | Transportation and special diet | Reasonable amount | ₹1,00,000 |
| TOTAL | ₹87,15,137 |
Para 8.
IX. DISCOMFORT AND INCONVENIENCE
The Court specifically considered the separate award of ₹25,000/- for discomfort and inconvenience.
It concluded that this was already encompassed within the compensation for pain and suffering.
Accordingly, the separate ₹25,000/- under that head was deleted.
Para 6.
This avoids duplication between overlapping heads of compensation.
X. FINAL COMPENSATION
The Supreme Court ultimately fixed the compensation at:
₹87,15,137/-
This was the compensation further enhanced from the amount awarded by the Tribunal and subsequently modified by the High Court.
The amount was directed to carry interest at the rate already awarded by the Tribunal and confirmed by the High Court.
Any amount already paid was to be deducted.
The balance was directed to be paid within two months from the date of the Supreme Court's order.
Para 9.
XI. FINAL CONCLUSION
The appeal was allowed.
The Supreme Court substantially enhanced the compensation by recognising the true economic consequences of a child's lifelong paralysis, rather than confining compensation to immediate medical expenditure.
The decisive considerations were:
the claimant was only five years old;
the spinal injury resulted in permanent paralysis;
although the medical certificate recorded 80% disability, the doctor's evidence established that the condition was lifelong;
the functional disability was therefore assessed at 100%;
skilled minimum wages were adopted for assessing loss of earning capacity;
40% future prospects were added;
multiplier 18 was applied;
a skilled attendant was considered necessary;
continuing expenditure for diapers, catheter and care was recognised;
compensation for pain and suffering and loss of marriage prospects was substantially enhanced; and
the earlier decision in Baby Sakshi Greola was applied with an adjustment for the increased cost of living.
Final award: ₹87,15,137/- with applicable interest, after deduction of amounts already paid.
Result: Appeal allowed.
