Supreme Court Enhances Compensation for Child in Road Accident: Master Ayush vs Reliance General Insurance
The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment dated March 29, 2022, ruled on the case of Master Ayush vs The Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.. The case involved a 5-year-old victim of a road accident, who suffered 100% permanent disability. The Court increased the compensation awarded by the High Court, recognizing the victim’s lifelong challenges and medical needs.
Background of the Case
The victim, Master Ayush, was just 5 years old when he suffered severe spinal cord injuries in a road accident on September 21, 2010. The accident left him paraplegic, with complete sensory loss in both legs, urinary incontinence, bowel constipation, and bed sores.
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) initially awarded Rs. 18,24,000/- as compensation. However, the Karnataka High Court reduced this amount to Rs. 13,46,805/-, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court.
Petitioner’s Arguments (Master Ayush)
The petitioner, represented by his father, argued:
- The High Court’s reduction of compensation was unjust, given the extent of disability.
- The medical expenses alone amounted to Rs. 5,73,700/-, but the High Court awarded only Rs. 1,61,805/-.
- The child required a specialized walking device (Advanced Reciprocating Gait Orthosis – ARGO), costing Rs. 5 lakh, which needed to be replaced every 5 years.
- The High Court’s award of Rs. 70,000/- for conveyance was inadequate, as the actual expenses incurred were Rs. 1,51,500/-.
- The child had lost his childhood and marriage prospects, which should be compensated.
Respondent’s Arguments (Reliance General Insurance)
The insurance company countered:
- The High Court had already generously compensated the victim.
- There was no justification for increasing the compensation further.
- The child’s father had not produced enough documentary proof for certain claims, such as conveyance expenses.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court, comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian, analyzed the compensation awarded under different heads.
On Medical Expenses
The Court observed:
“The medical expenses alone amounted to Rs. 5,73,700/-, and the High Court’s reduction to Rs. 1,61,805/- was unjustified.”
On Future Medical Expenses
The Court acknowledged that the child required multiple replacements of the specialized walking device over his lifetime.
“Since the device needs replacement every 5 years, we award Rs. 10 lakh towards future medical expenses.”
On Loss of Future Earnings
The Court applied the principle established in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand (2020) 4 SCC 413, where a multiplier method was used to assess future earnings for disabled minors.
The compensation was calculated as:
(Minimum wage of Rs. 3,700 + 40% future prospects) x 12 x 18 = Rs. 11,18,880/-
On Pain, Suffering, and Loss of Amenities
The Court noted:
“The child has lost his entire childhood and future independence. He will require lifelong care and support.”
Accordingly, it awarded Rs. 10 lakh for pain and suffering.
On Loss of Marriage Prospects
Recognizing the victim’s permanent disability, the Court granted Rs. 3 lakh under this head.
On Attendant Charges
The Court ruled:
“The child will require an attendant throughout his life. We award Rs. 8 lakh as compensation.”
On Conveyance Charges
The Tribunal had rejected certain claims for taxi expenses due to lack of supporting witness testimony. The Supreme Court disagreed:
“It is unreasonable to expect the petitioner to produce multiple taxi drivers as witnesses. We award Rs. 2 lakh for conveyance.”
Final Compensation Awarded
The Supreme Court revised the compensation as follows:
| Head | Amount (Rs.) |
|---|---|
| Loss of Future Earnings | 11,18,880 |
| Medical Expenses | 5,74,000 |
| Future Medical Expenses (Device Replacement) | 10,00,000 |
| Pain, Suffering & Loss of Amenities | 10,00,000 |
| Loss of Marriage Prospects | 3,00,000 |
| Attendant Charges | 8,00,000 |
| Conveyance Charges | 2,00,000 |
| Total | 49,93,000 |
Supreme Court’s Final Order
- The total compensation was increased to Rs. 49,93,000/-.
- The insurance company was directed to pay the amount with 7.5% interest from the date of the claim.
- Rs. 10 lakh was to be immediately released to the child’s father for medical expenses.
- The remaining amount was to be deposited in fixed deposits for the child’s benefit.
Implications of the Judgment
This ruling establishes several key legal principles:
- Children with permanent disabilities due to accidents deserve enhanced compensation.
- The Court recognizes lifelong medical needs and the need for periodic replacement of medical devices.
- Attendant charges must be awarded when the victim requires lifelong assistance.
- Loss of marriage prospects is a valid head of compensation for young victims with permanent disabilities.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Master Ayush vs. Reliance General Insurance is a landmark decision that reinforces the rights of accident victims. It sets a precedent for ensuring fair and just compensation for children who suffer catastrophic injuries, addressing not only their immediate medical needs but also their lifelong challenges.
Petitioner Name: Master Ayush.Respondent Name: The Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd..Judgment By: Justice Hemant Gupta, Justice V. Ramasubramanian.Place Of Incident: Karnataka.Judgment Date: 29-03-2022.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: master-ayush-vs-the-branch-manager,-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-29-03-2022.pdf
Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment
See all petitions in Compensation Disputes
See all petitions in Motor Vehicle Act
See all petitions in Judgment by Hemant Gupta
See all petitions in Judgment by V. Ramasubramanian
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments March 2022
See all petitions in 2022 judgments
See all posts in Accident Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Accident Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Accident Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Accident Cases Category
